Peak oil has arrived

[grmorton]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists. I have been depressed. I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.

We are currently within a dollar of the all time high for oil prices, yet Saudi production is declining, Mexican production is declining, UK production is declining, Iran if declining slightly, Kuwait is going down, Indonesia production is dropping, Oman production is dropping.

Tonight, I ran across this tidbit:


http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=34507
OPEC's output is expected to fall by 200,000 barrels a day in
> July because of lower production from Saudi Arabia and
> Venezuela, a leading tanker tracker said Monday.
>
> The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is expected
> to pump 29.9 million b/d in July, down from 30.1 million b/d
> in June, Geneva-based Petrologistics forecasts.
>
> Preliminary estimates from Petrologistics suggest Saudi
> Arabia will pump 9 million b/d in July down from 9.15 million
> b/d in June.
>
> Output from OPEC's largest producer and hence de facto
> leader, has fallen in recent months to around 9.1 million b/d
> from a high of 9.5 million b/d.
>
> "Saudi Arabia is being very careful about the number of
> barrels it pushes out, as there isn't the demand for the
> heavier grades it produces," said Conrad Gerber, president of
> Petrologistics.
>
> Venezuela's output is expected to fall by 250,000 b/d to
> around 2.3 million b/d in July because of oil maintenance
> work, Gerber said.
>
> Iran's output is expected to be flat on the month at 3.9
> million b/d. The Islamic republic has started to find buyers
> for its heavier crude grades, Gerber said.
>
> In recent weeks Iran was storing up to 20 million barrels of
> unwanted crude oil on tankers.


I was warned privately by an engineer who had worked in Saudi Arabia several years ago that by the end of this decade Saudi production would collapse. with it now going down, the world will have huge problems in just a few years. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm

We have now passed the most significant time in human history. For the past million years, every day in the future humanity had more energy than they had yesterday. But from here on out, we will have less energy every day in the future.

This will have implications for crop yields (1% of the world's energy supply goes to making fertilizer; N. Korea is starving to death because they can't get fertilizer), interest in your bank account (how can banks make money when every day in the future the businesses they loan money to have less energy with which to ship their products to market?), the structure of American and European cities, the ability to travel the world, the ability to ship food to distant places.

God help us all. We are like the reindeer on St. Matthews Island off Norway.


An example featuring mammals is provided by the reindeer of St.
Matthew Island, in the Bering Sea (Klein, 1968). This island had
a mat of lichens more than four inches deep, but no reindeer
until 1944, when a herd of 29 was introduced. By 1957 the
population had increased to 1,350; and by 1963 it was 6,000. But
the lichens were gone, and the next winter the herd died off.
Come spring, only 41 females and one apparently dysfunctional
male were left alive (Figure 2)." "Energy and Human Evolution
by David Price
Please address correspondence to Dr. Price,
254 Carpenter Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853.
From Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies
Volume 16, Number 4, March 1995, pp. 301-19
1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

The modern agricultural system is a means to turn petroleum to food. Lichen was the food for reindeer; oil is food for us humans. We are in trouble.

[lao tzu]

Well, I'd noticed your absence, Glenn, but assumed you were occupied elsewhere. Thanks for the update on peak oil. I've been following your other work previously. I'm unconvinced of your conclusions outside petroleum energy resources, however. Surely, there are other reserves that can be used as replacements. Coal, for example. While it's clear there will be large changes in our energy economy in the years to come, I don't see why petroleum must necessarily limit our total energy supplies.

As ever, Jesse

[Meh_Gerbil]

Glenn, as always you are a breath of fresh air.

*Meh_Gerbil goes and hangs himself in the garage*

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

Seriously though, I'd like to read your evaluation of the oil found around Cuba recently. They say it's a big find - is it really or are they just hoping it is? I'm a little skeptical.

[Tickle Me Goody]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists. I have been depressed. I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.

We are currently within a dollar of the all time high for oil prices, yet Saudi production is declining, Mexican production is declining, UK production is declining, Iran if declining slightly, Kuwait is going down, Indonesia production is dropping, Oman production is dropping.

Tonight, I ran across this tidbit:


http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=34507
OPEC's output is expected to fall by 200,000 barrels a day in
> July because of lower production from Saudi Arabia and
> Venezuela, a leading tanker tracker said Monday.
>
> The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is expected
> to pump 29.9 million b/d in July, down from 30.1 million b/d
> in June, Geneva-based Petrologistics forecasts.
>
> Preliminary estimates from Petrologistics suggest Saudi
> Arabia will pump 9 million b/d in July down from 9.15 million
> b/d in June.
>
> Output from OPEC's largest producer and hence de facto
> leader, has fallen in recent months to around 9.1 million b/d
> from a high of 9.5 million b/d.
>
> "Saudi Arabia is being very careful about the number of
> barrels it pushes out, as there isn't the demand for the
> heavier grades it produces," said Conrad Gerber, president of
> Petrologistics.
>
> Venezuela's output is expected to fall by 250,000 b/d to
> around 2.3 million b/d in July because of oil maintenance
> work, Gerber said.
>
> Iran's output is expected to be flat on the month at 3.9
> million b/d. The Islamic republic has started to find buyers
> for its heavier crude grades, Gerber said.
>
> In recent weeks Iran was storing up to 20 million barrels of
> unwanted crude oil on tankers.


I was warned privately by an engineer who had worked in Saudi Arabia several years ago that by the end of this decade Saudi production would collapse. with it now going down, the world will have huge problems in just a few years. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm

We have now passed the most significant time in human history. For the past million years, every day in the future humanity had more energy than they had yesterday. But from here on out, we will have less energy every day in the future.

This will have implications for crop yields (1% of the world's energy supply goes to making fertilizer; N. Korea is starving to death because they can't get fertilizer), interest in your bank account (how can banks make money when every day in the future the businesses they loan money to have less energy with which to ship their products to market?), the structure of American and European cities, the ability to travel the world, the ability to ship food to distant places.

God help us all. We are like the reindeer on St. Matthews Island off Norway.


An example featuring mammals is provided by the reindeer of St.
Matthew Island, in the Bering Sea (Klein, 1968). This island had
a mat of lichens more than four inches deep, but no reindeer
until 1944, when a herd of 29 was introduced. By 1957 the
population had increased to 1,350; and by 1963 it was 6,000. But
the lichens were gone, and the next winter the herd died off.
Come spring, only 41 females and one apparently dysfunctional
male were left alive (Figure 2)." "Energy and Human Evolution
by David Price
Please address correspondence to Dr. Price,
254 Carpenter Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853.
From Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies
Volume 16, Number 4, March 1995, pp. 301-19
1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

The modern agricultural system is a means to turn petroleum to food. Lichen was the food for reindeer; oil is food for us humans. We are in trouble.

Any solutions?

How about coal short term and nuclear long term?

[Ryokan]

Yeah, Glenn, I don't think many of us question the reality of peak oil, but rather the immediate apocalyptic effects. Long term, of course, finding a new energy source or sources will a be a serious problem that has to be resolved. Anyway, didn't that Campbell guy who's always on the news with this say we had actually reached peak oil back in early 2004, atleast for conventional oil?

Also, additionally, we are either going to find our way out of the situation, or die like dogs. And if your projections are correct on the economic impact, we will have strong incentives before the dying situation to try to find an alternative solution. Assuming one's possible. But worrying at this point is a waste of energy. We have chosen our path, and we have to hope it was the right one.

[grmorton]

Yeah, Glenn, I don't think many of us question the reality of peak oil, but rather the immediate apocalyptic effects. Long term, of course, finding a new energy source or sources will a be a serious problem that has to be resolved. Anyway, didn't that Campbell guy who's always on the news with this say we had actually reached peak oil back in early 2004, atleast for conventional oil?

Also, additionally, we are either going to find our way out of the situation, or die like dogs. And if your projections are correct on the economic impact, we will have strong incentives before the dying situation to try to find an alternative solution. Assuming one's possible. But worrying at this point is a waste of energy. We have chosen our path, and we have to hope it was the right one.


It depends upon how rapidly the decline comes whether we will really have time to change the infrastructure. What I have seen and heard tells me that Ghawar, the field which is the world's largest and produces 6% of the world's oil will fall off a cliff by the end of this decade. Cantarell, the second largest field which produces 3% of the world's oil will decline by 8% this year which is faster than they predicted last December. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anv9Ujulc2o0&refer=news

We import 1 million bbl/day from Mexico. My calculations show that by 2010-2014 Mexico will no longer be exporting oil.

Burgan, the 3rd largest field and it also produces around 3% of the world's oil was announced to be in decline last fall by the Kuwait government. They had to take 200,000 bbl/day off the market because the field couldn't sustain a 1.9 million bbl/day rate. Today it is producing less than 1.7 million bbl/day.

Now, let's look at the UK North Sea production. It is falling at 8% per year (the rate that Cantarell is going down). What that means is that within 6 years the UK has lost 45% of it's production. Here is a picture of the UK production.

[attachment=1]

If in 6 or 7 years, there was even 30% less oil than we have today, the disruptions to the economy would be horrendous. If the world drops at a similar rate to Cantarell or the UK or Oman, the next 20 years won't be much fun

Can we convert to coal? Yes, given enough time. While I was living in the UK, the last deep coal mine was closed. I hear they are looking at re-opening it now. But all of this will take time. I just returned from living in a country with a coal based economy. The air was just awful. But, given a choice between freezing in the dark and coal, I chose coal.

As energy costs go up, fertilizer costs go up. But historically prices for crops remain level meaning that the only way the farmer can balance the books is to not use as much fertilizer. And that will affect crop yields. 40% of the wheat crop is due to fertilizer. http://www.ppi-ppic.org/ppiweb/usagp.nsf/$webindex/485AF893EC22742A86256B80007B54DD

Given that 1% of the world's energy goes to fertilizer, one can see the implications of high energy prices

To me, the stunning thing yesterday was that The Saudi production is down so much in a world of near record oil prices. The Saudi's need the money and should be producing all out, yet their production rate is dropping. That is a very very bad sign.

edited to add: I am not so sure that the incentives to find a solution will be easily reached. I have seen so much demogogery on the energy issue that it isn't funny. China sees oil as a strategic asset to be protected. The US sees oil as something to be done away with. The first US reaction will be to blame the oil companies and tax them rather than solve the problem.

As to my predictions being correct, take a look at my article written in 1999 and published in 2000. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF12-00Morton.html#The%20Coming%20Energy%20Crisis

I predicted that by the mid part of this decade we would begin to have problems. Note the 4th sentence in the first paragraph.

[grmorton]

Glenn, as always you are a breath of fresh air.

*Meh_Gerbil goes and hangs himself in the garage*

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

Seriously though, I'd like to read your evaluation of the oil found around Cuba recently. They say it's a big find - is it really or are they just hoping it is? I'm a little skeptical.

I would love to find a 100 million bbl field, but that represents only 5 days of U.S. consumption and about 30 hours of world consumption. That ought to make you feel warm and fuzzy. BTW, the US won't allow exploration near Florida. CAstro can drill there but US oil companies who want to help fuel our society are treated with disdain and denied the same ability.

Another comparison. In my career I and my teams have been involved in finding just shy of a billion barrels of oil. At today's prices that represents 60 billion dollars of value. But, that represents a 2 week world supply. I haven't accomplished very much towards fueling the world. in an entire career.

[grmorton]

I'm unconvinced of your conclusions outside petroleum energy resources, however. Surely, there are other reserves that can be used as replacements. Coal, for example. While it's clear there will be large changes in our energy economy in the years to come, I don't see why petroleum must necessarily limit our total energy supplies.

As ever, Jesse

I would be curious to see your analysis. Coal represents 50% of world energy today. Oil represents 30%. I once did a calculation that if we replaced oil with coal the 200 year US coal supply would only last about 44 years. That is within the lifetime of my grandkids.

Fusion is the only real hope I see to get out of the problem and we don't know how to do it except in atomic bombs.

[Darth Executor]

Also, additionally, we are either going to find our way out of the situation, or die like dogs. And if your projections are correct on the economic impact, we will have strong incentives before the dying situation to try to find an alternative solution.

Humans weren't born drilling oil. We won't all die without it, it's just gonna make our life very, very bad.

[themuzicman]

And here I thought we had oil right here in the US that we haven't tapped, including Alaska, Utah/Wyoming/Colorado, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico.

In fact, if ANWR were up and going right now, we'd be getting over a million barrels/day from that resource alone, would we not?

Michael

[FreezBee]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists.

Yeah, I had been thinking, if you were working on something really big to give to us :smile:



I have been depressed. I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.

No, no, no - no way at all. First of all, it is in the deep depression of this planet that many a new source of energy is found. All we need now is to be creative and evolve some new sources of energy, for example teak oil and leak oil. Beak oil appears to much used by creationists, so they may have a source of it somewhere, or maybe some creation week oil. Really, there is no reason to be depressed. The day the last doomsday prophecy would be said, that would be the day to start worrying :smile:


- FreezBee

[NeilUnreal]

The first US reaction will be to blame the oil companies and tax them rather than solve the problem.

I disagree; the first U.S. reaction will be to open up the strategic reserves, increase the pumping of our last remaining fields, and subsidize the prices -- all so people can keep driving those single-passenger SUVs right up until the wells run dry.

The general human response to impending change is to do everything possible to pretend like it's not going to happen, even if in so doing, we make the change arrive sooner and worse.

-Neil

[themuzicman]

The US response will be invention and discovery, as it has always been.

Michael

[NeilUnreal]

The US response will be invention and discovery, as it has always been.

I don't disagree with this, since I think Americans tend to be inventive and resourceful -- especially in times of crisis. However, I don't think it necessarily makes for easy solutions to an oil crisis.

Here is why: Most of our inventiveness has been a response to surplus, not to shortage.

- Cheap automobiles, electricity, factory farming, etc. are all inventive responses to cheap energy.

- Our ability to rally and help win major conflicts like WWI and WWII was a result of surpluses made available to the defense industry and military, through law, taxation, voluntary recycling, and voluntary self-sacrifice.

- Most of our inventive products and services are a result of cash and credit surpluses tied to cheap energy.

- The development of cities (and related inventions like the elevator) are a result of energy surpluses and immigrant labor surpluses.

- The development of suburbs as a middle-class phenomenon are a result of energy surpluses and cash and credit surpluses from post-war hegemony.

So... although I think we clearly are inventive enough to solve problems related to shortages, we don't have a huge history of experience doing so. We're going to have to learn it. The biggest problem is that we have a lot of infrastructure based on cheap oil and we may need to find a way to back out of it. To re-invent the future, we may need to re-discover some older ways of doing things.

The saddest thing to me is, a lot of people were saying this very loudly as far back as the 1970s. Unfortunately politics came into play. First, to be seen as even a little cautious about being efficient was to be labeled a "tree-hugger" on the one side or a "rampant industrialist" on the other. So it became an "us and them" issue. Second, the few politicians who actually tried to take the country through the comparatively minor pain this would have cost in the 1970s were quickly voted out of office (e.g. Jimmy Carter). We decided looking good and feeling good was better than being good.

-Neil

[Da Lone-Warrior]

The US response will be invention and discovery, as it has always been.

Michael

Listen and learn from those who really know what they are talking about.

dlw

[Darth Executor]

Listen and learn from those who really know what they are talking about.

dlw

A reason to ignore all of your posts if there ever was one.

[themuzicman]

Listen and learn from those who really know what they are talking about.

dlw
As soon as I see some, I'll start.

Michael

[lao tzu]

I would be curious to see your analysis. Coal represents 50% of world energy today. Oil represents 30%. I once did a calculation that if we replaced oil with coal the 200 year US coal supply would only last about 44 years. That is within the lifetime of my grandkids.

Fusion is the only real hope I see to get out of the problem and we don't know how to do it except in atomic bombs. First, let me say I agree that replacement energy production from coal would be environmentally hideous in the short term, unsustainable in the medium long term as we still require an energy economy that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and bootless in the long term as it is similarly limited in supply.

The key lies in considering the inputs and outputs of this equation. A reduction in energy supply input into the Malthusian mix necessitates a proportional decrease either in population or per capita consumption. A long term solution must address ways to maintain both of these. To this point, I think we agree.

I don't agree that fusion is the only long-term alternative, even were we able to solve the engineering problem. You touch in your article (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF12-00Morton.html#The%20Coming%20Energy%20Crisis) on what I believe is the one available long-term solution, but too briefly in my opinion.

Solar energy is unlikely to be a viable replacement. Solar power cannot be generated at night and even during the day there is only a 12-15% efficiency of conversion.8 (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF12-00Morton.html#8)
It is possible to significantly increase both the efficiency of conversion and the scale of solar power while simultaneously eliminating the need to consider conditions of light and darkness. Jerry Pournelle undertook an analysis in A Step Further Out (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000GRMI7K/104-0830011-6343958?v=glance&n=283155), published in 1980. As you might guess from the author and title, such a solution would require moving energy production facilities outside our atmosphere. And in a sense, it is indeed a fusion solution, tapping into a natural fusion reactor many orders of magnitude larger than any we could construct ourselves.

Unlike conversion to fusion, there are no fundamental hurdles remaining for such a technology. We know how to construct solar collectors, how to transport objects into space, and how to build and focus the microwave projectors necessary to return energy to the surface. That really is all that's technically required.

We could do this.

Additionally, since its publication in 1980, other technologies (http://www.spaceelevator.com/) have been emerging that could vastly simplify such a project. The question, it seems to me, is one of gathering the required economic and political resources necessary to place such a project on a footing that would deliver what is needed prior to the inevitable declines your article foresees.

On this latter, I am far from optimistic, but more optimistic than yourself, it seems.

As ever, Jesse

[Warcraft3]

Glen has some good articles related to these issues on his website....everyone should read them for some background.

The real problem is that is takes energy to get energy...and we are going to be seriously losing out in the deal when it comes to oil.

The worlds consumption is expected to rise as supplies begin decreasing....prices will continue to go up.

I suspect the US will respond as it did during the Y2K scare, where we had programmers scrambling (and making a nice salary) to update the computers that small businesses and banks were using...

Whether or not we find a solution remains to be seen, but if we do not things are going to get very, very bad. Who knows? I might even end up working on something related to that very problem in the future...right now I work for a very large DoD contractor on military projects.

Maybe someday the energy crisis will be one of those projects...


Glenn....I'm not sure if fusion is the only answer, but it would certainly put my mind at ease if we developed a way to use it....





Russ

[FreezBee]

The real problem is that is takes energy to get energy...and we are going to be seriously losing out in the deal when it comes to oil.

So, if we weren't so concerned about getting energy, we wouldn't need energy? That would be an interesting solution!

- FreezBee

[NeilUnreal]

A problem that concerns me is this: we could greatly ameliorate issues associated with increased oil cost by making personal and corporate changes in the areas of conservation and sustainable infrastructure. The problem is, we need a strong public policy in this regard, since there are actually strong disincentives to conserve a shrinking resource in a free market.

For one thing, you get a kind of two-phase “tragedy of the commons” effect:

1) First, if I choose to conserve (thus maintaining supply) it will keep the supply cheap, and players in the market who are not willing to voluntarily conserve will merely continue consuming at the same rate minus my little fraction. So at best, this means that those who choose to conserve voluntarily help delay the inevitable a little longer.

2) Second, if I fear the resource is running out, I have a strong incentive to use as much of it as possible while it is still cheap. In a state of dwindling supply it is a perfectly rational free-market choice to consume as fast as possible to try to obtain the largest fraction of benefit before my competitors (e.g. neighbors) get it. “It’s going to run out someday,” I reason, “I’m going to grab as much of it as I can afford while it’s here.”

An even bigger problem is that most of the changes associated with a loss of cheap oil involve long-term public and private infrastructure. Even the strictest conservation only delays the inevitable, at the end of the day, we still need to fix the structural problems, and this takes time and money. If we wait until cost begins to regulate supply, it will be too late to change the infrastructure and we will not have enough money left even if there were time.

However, we seem to lack the political will to do any of this. Gas goes up a paltry $0.50 per gallon, and we all start yelling that we need to tap the reserves!, jail the oil execs!, drill Alaska! For what? So we can make the weekly two-passenger trip to the lighted, air-conditioned mall in a commercial construction-sized pickup truck for a couple of bucks less per month?

-Neil

[themuzicman]

A better solution is to create cheaper, more convienent alternatives to oil-based products and energy.

If I had the money (and connections), I'd love to build a maglev rail system from Boston to Miami and then West to LA, which would run on electricity, and it could use nuclear or coal based power, and would compete with the airline industry (oil based power) for transportation.

If it were cost effective, you'd have transportation that was:

Less dangerous (you're not 5 miles in the air, no one will fly a train into a building)
Competitive for time of travel (Maglev can do 300MPH. Including stopover, a plane trip from NY to LA is around 10 hours, which is what a train would run.)
Less hassel and discomfort (No change in cabin pressure, less security hassels)
More convienences (Cell phoones, wireless internet, cable TV, etc.)

But, like I said, you need money and connections to make something that huge happen.

Michael

[Da Lone-Warrior]

America and the World is not going to deal with this issue until we admit we messed up majorly with our consumerism/hyper-individualism and historic int'l manipulations deigned to keep the price of oil cheap for us(Mossadegh in '53 being a prime example), and put on virtual ignore the nitwits with a blind faith in technology.


dlw

[NeilUnreal]

One possible alternative energy source I have mixed feelings about is nuclear energy. At the time it was basically abandoned by the U.S., I felt both sides were being a little hasty.

The industry side wanted to pretend like it was a cakewalk: completely safe, no disposal issues, etc. Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl disabused us of that notion.

On the other side, the "zero-tolerance" policy of many environmentalists also rankled me. I have long been interested in environmentalism, and I thought nuclear energy, properly used, could be a really good source of environmentally-friendly energy.

About the only people I had sympathy for were those in the environmentalist crowd who cautioned against seeing nuclear energy as a panacea, rather that something to be used in conjunction with conservation, etc. After all, one way to lessen the safety and disposal problems is to have fewer plants and produce less waste.

So, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, nuclear energy seems a little bit beyond our ability to use safely, given human foibles. On the other hand, it would be dandy if we could get to a point of having safe nuclear power without bungling the process along the way*. The unfortunate part of acting in haste on the issue is that we created an economic and political situation where no one was willing to risk the capital to even find out if we could use nuclear power safely.

-Neil

*Particulary in conjunction with the large gains in efficiency and environmental-friendliness of rechargeable battery technology since the 1970s.

[Darth Executor]

Chernobyl isn't really an issue. The soviets weren't exactly known for quality craftsmanship.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

A better solution is to create cheaper, more convienent alternatives to oil-based products and energy.

Wow, well as long as we're bending our back over to keep oil prices from getting too high, we won't be seeing too many solutions like that, will we now? Oh wait, we'll give subsidies to Bush-supporting companies, right, and then preach the Gospel truth of "Free Markets" to keep liberals, willing to learn from the EU, from combining oil taxes and income transfers to muck things up?

Um, whatever...

Like I said, listen! Just because something does not use oil does not mean that it'll help conserve energy. If we can force ourselves to reduce our oil dependency, we'll be able to delay the serious effects of the Peak Oil problem and give us more time to develop effective long-term alternatives.

dlw

[Gideon Brown]

Chernobyl isn't really an issue. The soviets weren't exactly known for quality craftsmanship.

I dunno. The Kirov airship was pretty indestructible. :whistle:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Chernobyl isn't really an issue. The soviets weren't exactly known for quality craftsmanship.

As I understand it, it was more the fault of how they conditioned their engineers into acting like drones, because they didn't want the engineers mucking up their centralization of control of the economy.

dlw

[themuzicman]

Wow, well as long as we're bending our back over to keep oil prices from getting too high, we won't be seeing too many solutions like that, will we now? Oh wait, we'll give subsidies to Bush-supporting companies, right, and then preach the Gospel truth of "Free Markets" to keep liberals, willing to learn from the EU, from combining oil taxes and income transfers to muck things up?

Um, whatever...

Like I said, listen! Just because something does not use oil does not mean that it'll help conserve energy. If we can force ourselves to reduce our oil dependency, we'll be able to delay the serious effects of the Peak Oil problem and give us more time to develop effective long-term alternatives.

dlw

Yeah, and Europe has done such a wonderful job managing their economies that they've come up with all these new technologies as a result of higher gas...

Oh, wait... :doh:

Or didn't you want reality to set in?

Michael

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Yeah, and Europe has done such a wonderful job managing their economies that they've come up with all these new technologies as a result of higher gas...

Oh, wait... :doh:

Or didn't you want reality to set in?

Michael

Shoot man, they aren't the ones that are seriously exacerbating the problem.

They have adapted to higher oil prices. The technologies aren't being used here because we got much cheaper oil prices for some reason.

Please, Stop embarrassing yourself!

dlw

[NeilUnreal]

To my mind, the important lessons of Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island are not why things went wrong, it was the lesson that, in engineering, there will always be unforseen things that can go wrong.

Even when things go badly wrong at a coal-fired plant (for example), the graver aspects of the peril are confined to the relative vicinity of the plant, and are easier to clean up. When things go wrong at a nuclear plant or at a large hydroelectric dam, even small events can escalate to major consequences with wide immediate and long-term damage.

(One of the main reasons the U.S. has so few recent hydroelectric plants has nothing to do with environmentalism. It's the huge liability associated with major accidents like breaches, which makes the projects almost impossible to get approval and bonding for.)

We can never make anything 100% safe. But then, life without electricity is not 100% safe. However, before we start using "big consequence" technologies like nuclear power, we need to get really, really, really good at making them safe.

-Neil

[Darth Executor]

They have adapted to higher oil prices.

The problem isn't oil prices, it's oil itself! Their economy will not work without oil anymore than our own will. All they're doing is paying more for oil. This will do jack for Europe because the US, and likely China as well will suck up more of it faster. When the oil ends, Europe will be caught with their pants down just like everybody else. MM's point was that Europe's high oil prices have done nothing to come up with alternatives.

[NeilUnreal]

The problem isn't oil prices, it's oil itself! Their economy will not work without oil anymore than our own will. All they're doing is paying more for oil.

True. However, the Europeans did inherit better non-oil infrastructure as a result of being fairly densely populated in the pre-oil days. Much of our American (and Canadian) infrastructure developed de novo after oil became cheap. (This actually helped us economically when oil became cheap, because we had no pre-oil infrastructure to build around.)

So although the Europeans share our problems with oil, they may have a somewhat easier task moving towards solutions based on infrastructure. In many cases, they can move back to solutions that already exist; we will have to implement non-oil solutions from scratch.

-Neil

[themuzicman]

Shoot man, they aren't the ones that are seriously exacerbating the problem.

They have adapted to higher oil prices. The technologies aren't being used here because we got much cheaper oil prices for some reason.

Please, Stop embarrassing yourself!

dlw

Look! The emporor has no clothes!

Please, DLW, point out these wonderful new technologies that Europe has created to deal with the higher oil prices! Where are they? Why aren't they flying around in nuclear powered cars or hydrogen based vehicles or solar-mobiles?

They're in the same boat that we are, they government there has just been screwing them for the last several decades by taxin the gas that they DO consume!

They're as much oil based as we are. (Although I gotta give France props for using nuclear power.)

And, if you look around, hybrids are sprouting up here in the US. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are spouting up here in the US, E85 ethanol is sprouting up herein the US.

Yeah, that would be the oil sucking, low gas priced US of A that's (again) leading the way in technology to reduce and shift our dependence away from oil.

There's even a company in St. Louis (don't quote me on that) that's making oil out of waste products from Chicken processing plants! It's not cost effective per barrel, yet, but they make up the difference in selling the other by-products of their process.

So! Maybe YOU ought to be the one shutting your ignorant, uninformed, naive little trap and learning from people who know what they're talking about.

Michael

[Sparko]

hey maybe the US plan is to just sit on our oil and use up the foreign oil. Then when that's all gone we can whip out our oil and say "neener! neener! neener!"

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Look! The emporor has no clothes!

Please, DLW, point out these wonderful new technologies that Europe has created to deal with the higher oil prices! Where are they? Why aren't they flying around in nuclear powered cars or hydrogen based vehicles or solar-mobiles?

They're in the same boat that we are, they government there has just been screwing them for the last several decades by taxin the gas that they DO consume!

I'm just seeing blah-blah-blah-blah....

Show, not tell. If you're going to make such statements. You don't have the credibility that GRMorton does to have us take it on your word alone.


They're as much oil based as we are. (Although I gotta give France props for using nuclear power.)

And, if you look around, hybrids are sprouting up here in the US. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are spouting up here in the US, E85 ethanol is sprouting up herein the US.

Yeah, that would be the oil sucking, low gas priced US of A that's (again) leading the way in technology to reduce and shift our dependence away from oil.

There's even a company in St. Louis (don't quote me on that) that's making oil out of waste products from Chicken processing plants! It's not cost effective per barrel, yet, but they make up the difference in selling the other by-products of their process.

So! Maybe YOU ought to be the one shutting your ignorant, uninformed, naive little trap and learning from people who know what they're talking about.

Michael


Whatever. I'm happy to do so, but only from those that have long-demonstrated that they have a clue.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

hey maybe the US plan is to just sit on our oil and use up the foreign oil. Then when that's all gone we can whip out our oil and say "neener! neener! neener!"

We can join that with asking, "What Would Jesus Do?"

dlw

[themuzicman]

I'm just seeing blah-blah-blah-blah....

Show, not tell. If you're going to make such statements. You don't have the credibility that GRMorton does to have us take it on your word alone.




Whatever. I'm happy to do so, but only from those that have long-demonstrated that they have a clue.

dlw
:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

PWN3D! :bananaburn:

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

PWN3D! :bananaburn:

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

Would someone else please tell tMM what an absolute moron he is?

dlw

[themuzicman]

Would someone else please tell tMM what an absolute moron he is?

dlw
Maybe you should start here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1599792&postcount=32)

[Sparko]

We can join that with asking, "What Would Jesus Do?"

dlw

He probably turn a few lakes into oil and tell the muslims "Neener! Neener! Neener! We can make as much oil as we want!"

[Sparko]

Would someone else please tell tMM what an absolute moron he is?

dlw

PWNED!

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1597134&postcount=1

[Da Lone-Warrior]

The problem isn't oil prices, it's oil itself! Their economy will not work without oil anymore than our own will. All they're doing is paying more for oil. This will do jack for Europe because the US, and likely China as well will suck up more of it faster. When the oil ends, Europe will be caught with their pants down just like everybody else. MM's point was that Europe's high oil prices have done nothing to come up with alternatives.

You're making a fallacious assumption here, yes, they need oil, but that doesn't mean that their higher oil prices have not had an effect on their oil consumption.

The "price elasticity of demand (http://www.google.com/search?hs=vqt&hl=en&lr=&rls=DELA%2CDELA%3A2006-02%2CDELA%3Aen&q=%22price+elasticity+of+demand%22+definition)" is low, but that does not mean it is non-existent.

MM is a fool, who doesn't have a clue what a fool he is and confirms this by thinking he PWN3D me because I asked him to show what he was saying.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

PWNED!

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1597134&postcount=1

Have you ever heard of context? How many OPers of that genre in the locker room are meant to be taken completely literally?

There's nothing acrimonious about tMM being a fool/moron when it comes to the hefty matters discussed in this thread by others.

dlw

[themuzicman]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists. I have been depressed. I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.

We are currently within a dollar of the all time high for oil prices, yet Saudi production is declining, Mexican production is declining, UK production is declining, Iran if declining slightly, Kuwait is going down, Indonesia production is dropping, Oman production is dropping.

Tonight, I ran across this tidbit:


http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=34507
OPEC's output is expected to fall by 200,000 barrels a day in
> July because of lower production from Saudi Arabia and
> Venezuela, a leading tanker tracker said Monday.
>
> The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is expected
> to pump 29.9 million b/d in July, down from 30.1 million b/d
> in June, Geneva-based Petrologistics forecasts.
>
> Preliminary estimates from Petrologistics suggest Saudi
> Arabia will pump 9 million b/d in July down from 9.15 million
> b/d in June.
>
> Output from OPEC's largest producer and hence de facto
> leader, has fallen in recent months to around 9.1 million b/d
> from a high of 9.5 million b/d.
>
> "Saudi Arabia is being very careful about the number of
> barrels it pushes out, as there isn't the demand for the
> heavier grades it produces," said Conrad Gerber, president of
> Petrologistics.
>
> Venezuela's output is expected to fall by 250,000 b/d to
> around 2.3 million b/d in July because of oil maintenance
> work, Gerber said.
>
> Iran's output is expected to be flat on the month at 3.9
> million b/d. The Islamic republic has started to find buyers
> for its heavier crude grades, Gerber said.
>
> In recent weeks Iran was storing up to 20 million barrels of
> unwanted crude oil on tankers.


I was warned privately by an engineer who had worked in Saudi Arabia several years ago that by the end of this decade Saudi production would collapse. with it now going down, the world will have huge problems in just a few years. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm

We have now passed the most significant time in human history. For the past million years, every day in the future humanity had more energy than they had yesterday. But from here on out, we will have less energy every day in the future.

This will have implications for crop yields (1% of the world's energy supply goes to making fertilizer; N. Korea is starving to death because they can't get fertilizer), interest in your bank account (how can banks make money when every day in the future the businesses they loan money to have less energy with which to ship their products to market?), the structure of American and European cities, the ability to travel the world, the ability to ship food to distant places.

God help us all. We are like the reindeer on St. Matthews Island off Norway.


An example featuring mammals is provided by the reindeer of St.
Matthew Island, in the Bering Sea (Klein, 1968). This island had
a mat of lichens more than four inches deep, but no reindeer
until 1944, when a herd of 29 was introduced. By 1957 the
population had increased to 1,350; and by 1963 it was 6,000. But
the lichens were gone, and the next winter the herd died off.
Come spring, only 41 females and one apparently dysfunctional
male were left alive (Figure 2)." "Energy and Human Evolution
by David Price
Please address correspondence to Dr. Price,
254 Carpenter Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853.
From Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies
Volume 16, Number 4, March 1995, pp. 301-19
1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

The modern agricultural system is a means to turn petroleum to food. Lichen was the food for reindeer; oil is food for us humans. We are in trouble.
I do apologize to GRM for derailing his thread. I will cease.

Michael

[Sparko]

Have you ever heard of context? How many OPers of that genre in the locker room are meant to be taken completely literally?

There's nothing acrimonious about tMM being a fool/moron when it comes to the hefty matters discussed in this thread by others.

dlw

welcome to the mud party dlw.

[Darth Executor]

You're making a fallacious assumption here, yes, they need oil, but that doesn't mean that their higher oil prices have not had an effect on their oil consumption.


Where did I say that? In fact, I said nothing about their oil consumption. It doesn't matter if their consumption has been reduced. Let me try to explain it again:

Group A: countries who extract and sell oil. Group A has 9 units of oil.
Group B: Europe. Europe's increase in oil price (say, 50%) grants them reduced oil consumption, needing 1 unit of oil per year.
Group C: Countries who don't give a crap about conserving oil. Say, the US, and probably China. They consume 2 units of oil per year.

1 year later
Group A: 7 oil left
Group B: bought 1 unit of oil for 1.5 units of money.
Group C: bought 2 units of oil for 2 units of money.

2 years later
Group A: 4 oil left
Group B: bought 1 unit of oil for 1.5 units of money.
Group C: bought 2 units of oil for 2 units of money.

3 years later
Group A: 4 oil left
Group B: bought 1 unit of oil for 1.5 units of money.
Group C: bought 2 units of oil for 2 units of money.

4 years later
Group A: No oil left. Most of these countries are pretty poor otherwise so odds are that their economy will collapse hard.
Group B: Has bought 3 units of oil for 4.5 units of money. There is no more oil left, their infrastructure collapses.
Group C: Has bought 6 units of oil for 6 units of money. There is no more oil left, their infrastructure collapses.

What is the difference between them? Europe paid more. That's it. By reducing oil consumption, they just leave more of it for other countries to buyand profit off their sacrifice. In the end, the oil providers will still run out of oil and the only thing Europe achieved is to overcharge its citizens while other nations got to benefit from the extended life of the oil reserves for a little while longer.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

welcome to the mud party dlw.

I'd welcome you to the banalities party, but ye walked that plank a long time ago.

dlw

[Sparko]

I'd welcome you to the banalities party, but ye walked that plank a long time ago.

dlw

been reading the dictionary again?

Hey! lighten up. you are no better or worse than the rest of us hypocrites.

[lao tzu]

Can we get a mod in here to pluck out these OT exchanges and toss them somewhere? (Yes, including this one.)

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Can we get a mod in here to pluck out these OT exchanges and toss them somewhere? (Yes, including this one.)

I'd like to second that!

dlw

[Sheepdog]

anyone else get the suspicions that today's oil irks have more to do with politics than peak oil? no doubt the Israel/Hezballah war has changed OPEC's dynamic.

recently we lost a lot of input of oil, not because their is no more oil in the fields, but because BP shut down some pipelines for repairs. my point is, we can't just point at a graph, even if it has a trend, and cry "peak oil!" sure the Ghawer(sp?) field is undeniably an a crash course, ... heck i wish we had an analysis like that available for every oil producing region.

it's a precarious day that we depend on oil from societies who want to see us die.

[Tickle Me Goody]

anyone else get the suspicions that today's oil irks have more to do with politics than peak oil? no doubt the Israel/Hezballah war has changed OPEC's dynamic.

recently we lost a lot of input of oil, not because their is no more oil in the fields, but because BP shut down some pipelines for repairs. my point is, we can't just point at a graph, even if it has a trend, and cry "peak oil!" sure the Ghawer(sp?) field is undeniably an a crash course, ... heck i wish we had an analysis like that available for every oil producing region.

it's a precarious day that we depend on oil from societies who want to see us die.
Glenn Morton has pointing this out for many years. With each passing year, he is shown to be correct on the oil supply.

Denial doesn't work well.

IMO

GG

[Sheepdog]

Glenn Morton has pointing this out for many years. With each passing year, he is shown to be correct on the oil supply.

he's been right on oil production, that much is true. oil supply is a speculative business. heck i didn't even say he is wrong on supply. i'm just pointing out that the much ignored political layer doesn't follow a neat bell graph.


Denial doesn't work well.

IMO

Abraham Lincoln, at a trial against him where all the evidence was circumstantial, told an interesting story. One day, a boy came running in and yelled, "Pa! Sis and the hired hand are in the hay taking there britches off! I think they are going to pee on the hay." The father said, "you got the facts right, but you came to the wrong conclusion."

before i can be in denial, there has to be sound reasoning to deny.

[lao tzu]

CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/oil/oil.asp)
The "pessimists" advocate the position that the world is finite and so are its recoverable oil resources. To make their argument, they rely on descriptive statistics and base their conclusions on the statistical study of past discoveries, considering all oil and gas fields to be static objects (with no evolution in the size of initially recoverable reserves). The pessimists believe that all of the oil-bearing regions worth exploring have already been explored and that the big fields have already been discovered, ergo future discoveries will be small. They claim that the official figures for proven reserves have been overestimated for some regions and that world oil production is currently at its optimum - or can be expected to reach its optimum in the medium term - and will decrease steadily thereafter.

The "optimists" hold a dynamic concept of reserves and believe that a method based solely on applying descriptive statistics to past discoveries will only yield a partial image of actual potential. The volumes of exploitable oil and gas are closely correlated to technological advances, technical costs and the price of the barrel of crude or the cubic metre of gas. For example, it is estimated that today only 35% to 40% of the oil present in discovered fields is recovered. According to an optimist, any improvement in this recovery rate - even if by only one point - allows the industry to tap substantial additional reserves. Similarly, the boundary between conventional and non-conventional hydrocarbons is not fixed, but has continued to shift regularly over time. For instance, optimists note that it is now both feasible and profitable to exploit fields at water depths exceeding 1 000 metres, which was still thought to be impossible 15 years ago.

For what it's worth.

[grmorton]

And here I thought we had oil right here in the US that we haven't tapped, including Alaska, Utah/Wyoming/Colorado, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico.

In fact, if ANWR were up and going right now, we'd be getting over a million barrels/day from that resource alone, would we not?

Michael


Could be, but the loonies have decided that it is better for us to freeze in the dark

[Tickle Me Goody]

Could be, but the loonies have decided that it is better for us to freeze in the dark

When enough older peole die in the winter, some priorities may shift. Let's hope and pray.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Could be, but the loonies have decided that it is better for us to freeze in the dark

We're not losing the oil by waiting.

dlw

[grmorton]

Glenn....I'm not sure if fusion is the only answer, but it would certainly put my mind at ease if we developed a way to use it....
Russ

Hi Russ, In 1% of the world's deuterium lies 500,000 times more energy than will be burned by all fossil fuels combined. If we solve fusion, we go to the stars, if we don't, we go to the stone age. At the end of this century there will be no commercial oil, gas and maybe no more coal. (before people think that coal will last for 200 years they should realize that that is calculated at present rates of usage).

[grmorton]

he's been right on oil production, that much is true. oil supply is a speculative business. heck i didn't even say he is wrong on supply. i'm just pointing out that the much ignored political layer doesn't follow a neat bell graph.

First off, production IS supply. If there is too much supply, the price drops and vice versa. If there is too much supply for too long, all the storage tanks in the world would fill up and the price would drop further.




Abraham Lincoln, at a trial against him where all the evidence was circumstantial, told an interesting story. One day, a boy came running in and yelled, "Pa! Sis and the hired hand are in the hay taking there britches off! I think they are going to pee on the hay." The father said, "you got the facts right, but you came to the wrong conclusion."

before i can be in denial, there has to be sound reasoning to deny.

I would be curious to hear you analysis of the situation, the more quantitative it is the better. I would point out that for the past 25 years the world has been pumping more oil out of the ground each year than we explorationists have found during that year. Today we find about 3 bbl for every 10 we burn.

If I have unsound reasoning, I am always interested in hearing where I have fallen short. But I hope you have done your homework.

[Trout]

I spoke with a friend of mine who runs a small local refinery, they process about 16,600 bbl/day. He says it's been a little harder for them to find oil to refine, but the local supply is more and more promising. I asked him about "peak oil" and what he thought. He seems to think that $70 oil has started to open up some more options for the oil companies, shale, oil sand and old wells can at last be operated at a profit.

He said that in our area many wells have been abandoned that could be cleaned up and re-started.

He also said something that I've heard before and don't know what to think of it. He said that the Middle Eastern oil producers weren't incredibly efficient at pumping oil, there is a great deal of waste that could be cleaned up. Any truth to that, Glenn?

[grmorton]

CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/oil/oil.asp)

[font=Verdana][size=-1][b]The "optimists" hold a dynamic concept of reserves and believe that a method based solely on applying descriptive statistics to past discoveries will only yield a partial image of actual potential. The volumes of exploitable oil and gas are closely correlated to technological advances, technical costs and the price of the barrel of crude or the cubic metre of gas. For example, it is estimated that today only 35% to 40% of the oil present in discovered fields is recovered. According to an optimist, any improvement in this recovery rate - even if by only one point - allows the industry to tap substantial additional reserves. Similarly, the boundary between conventional and non-conventional hydrocarbons is not fixed, but has continued to shift regularly over time. For instance, optimists note that it is now both feasible and profitable to exploit fields at water depths exceeding 1 000 metres, which was still thought to be impossible 15 years ago.

For what it's worth.

Clearly I am a pessimist. So I will throw a question at those optimistic souls who believe what I have bolded. Here is a chart of the discovery vrs cumulative production for West Texas. When production is big, the cumulative production curve rises sharply. When it is low, it is very flat. Notice that since about 1971 it has been relatively flat.

[attachment=1]

Now, modern advanced technology didn't really develop until the 1970s and you can see that it has not helped us find big fields at all. We don't need modern technology to find big fields. Technology helps us find the small fields which remain.

Why if technology will make the rocks gush forth vast quantities of oil, did it not work in West Texas?

Here is a production curve for a North Sea field, Ninian. I once worked on Ninian which is a huge field, 3 billion in place and 1.4 billion recoverable with about 1 billion already pumped out. The original owner of Ninian would have abandoned the field 1993. But they sold it to a smaller company. Now, technology allowed production of about 5% of the peak to continue for years. Technology DIDN'T make the field produce as much as it did in its early years. People really dont' understand what technology can do WRT production. This is what field after field looks like when technology is applied.

[attachment=2]

Why if technology will make old fields gush forth vast quantities of oil did it not work at Ninian?

[grmorton]

We're not losing the oil by waiting.

dlw

You are losing the ability to keep the economy going long enough to actually solve the replacement energy problem.

[grmorton]

I spoke with a friend of mine who runs a small local refinery, they process about 16,600 bbl/day. He says it's been a little harder for them to find oil to refine, but the local supply is more and more promising. I asked him about "peak oil" and what he thought. He seems to think that $70 oil has started to open up some more options for the oil companies, shale, oil sand and old wells can at last be operated at a profit.

He said that in our area many wells have been abandoned that could be cleaned up and re-started.

He also said something that I've heard before and don't know what to think of it. He said that the Middle Eastern oil producers weren't incredibly efficient at pumping oil, there is a great deal of waste that could be cleaned up. Any truth to that, Glenn?

YEs, the rising price of oil will open up new, smaller production facilities. The thing your friend might be missing is that the high gravity oils are getting scarcer and scarcer. The world is beginning to shop heavier crudes because that is all that is left.

Your friend is correct that old stripper wells can be restarted, but 2 bbl/day per well won't easily solve the loss of production of 1 million bbl per day in Cantarell.

No one is as efficient at producing oil and gas as are the US and UK oil companies. We can drain a field clean in a very short time. But that means that you then need to find a new field to drain or production goes down.

But, I had an engineer who used to work for Saudi Aramco tell me that they drilled a well in the zone where the water front had passed by to see how efficient the water sweep was. He said there was an 86% recovery in Ghawar. That is an incredibly efficient recovery figure.

[FreezBee]

If we solve fusion, we go to the stars, if we don't, we go to the stone age.

But then we'll find out if there were any dinosaurs in the stoneage!!! Not bad, right?

- FreezBee

[Jorge]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists.
Nooooo ... reeeeeally? You were actually 'absent'? I hadn't noticed. :wink:


I have been depressed.
A Christian should never be depressed. Why? Because we know how the story ends, that's why.
And it's a great ending for us! As for me, I can hardly contain myself waiting for that ending. :smile:


I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.
How that ending comes about is only for God to know. However, we do know through Scripture that certain events are going to occur - events that are going to serve both as signs that the end is near and also as 'paving the road' for other things that must happen prior to His Second Coming. I have personally always held that one of these signs will be a major economic revolution on a planetary level and oil/energy is very likely to be a causing agent to bring this about. When you think about it, our economy's infrastructure is based on 'old' technology and, as such, it's not holding its own.

Bottom line : I don't desire the suffering that the future is sure to bring - not for my family or friends or anyone, myself included - but if what all this means is that Christ is very, very near then, please, bring it on, quick! :smile:

I'll be gone for a while - you people be good.

Jorge

[grmorton]

Nooooo ... reeeeeally? You were actually 'absent'? I hadn't noticed. :wink:


A Christian should never be depressed. Why? Because we know how the story ends, that's why.

Frankly the passage Matt 26:-42 sounds a bit like Jesus was depressed and surely he knew the outcome of the story:

39And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. 40And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 42Again a second time he went away, and prayed, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done.


And it is not for me that I worry but for my children and grandkids and the suffering the others in the world might endure.



And it's a great ending for us! As for me, I can hardly contain myself waiting for that ending. :smile:

You sound as crazy as my mother did when at my 29-year-old brother's funeral she told everyone how happy she was. Her reasoning was the same. Jesus had the good sense to weep at the grave of Lazarus.



How that ending comes about is only for God to know. However, we do know through Scripture that certain events are going to occur - events that are going to serve both as signs that the end is near and also as 'paving the road' for other things that must happen prior to His Second Coming. I have personally always held that one of these signs will be a major economic revolution on a planetary level and oil/energy is very likely to be a causing agent to bring this about. When you think about it, our economy's infrastructure is based on 'old' technology and, as such, it's not holding its own.

you and the Iranian president can bring on the great Apocalypse.


Bottom line : I don't desire the suffering that the future is sure to bring - not for my family or friends or anyone, myself included - but if what all this means is that Christ is very, very near then, please, bring it on, quick! :smile:

I'll be gone for a while - you people be good.

Jorge

Glad to hear that. Maybe some rationality can return to the board.

[TheGreenMan]

Don't know if any one has mentioned this yet or not but there is a plant comming online, in Indiana I think, which will be able to turn most organic matter and petrolium products into oil with a net gain of energy. I.e. the oil will produce more energy than whent into producing it.

I first read this several years ago in Popular Science and though, "That's cool but will it really work full scale?"

And just a few weeks ago I heard about the full scale plant that, iirrc, has been constructed and is being run through its paces.

[NeilUnreal]

One thing to keep in mind is that peak oil is not about waking up one morning and finding the wells have suddenly gone dry. Peak oil is about the rate of increase in demand catastrophically overshooting the supply – even if that supply can somehow be sustained or even made to increase.

Our infrastructure is based on not just on oil, but on cheap oil. There is some flexibility in that infrastructure and it can absorb a certain rate of increasing cost. Peak oil is about when the rate of increasing cost of recovery, and new demand coming on line, cause end-point costs to exceed the ability of the infrastructure to absorb the rate of increasing cost as demand flexibility. At that point, hysteresis in the infrastructure prevents a smooth transition to a new infrastructure with a different supply/demand regime.

A non-trivial aspect in this case is that modifying the infrastructure itself entails the use of the inflexible commodity. I agree with Glenn that we may need to tap all the oil reserves we can find if we are close to the limit of supply/demand flexibility. What I worry about is that we don’t where that limit is. We know it’s not $70/barrel. But is it $80, $100? If we tap the reserves too soon, we will just do with them what we did with the rest of our oil: use them to fuel lifestyles that pretend the oil will never run out.

It would be nice to find a way to do all the preparation needed to quickly tap the reserves, even if it entails a little environmental stress, and yet stop short of actually using the oil. That way, when it becomes glaringly apparent that the energy will be needed to rescue ourselves from our cheap oil infrastructure, we can perhaps find the will to use it for such. However, I worry we lack maturity to do this. If we make the remaining oil easy to use, we’ll use it; and then when we run out, we’ll really be out.

-Neil

[Mark_S]

Don't know if any one has mentioned this yet or not but there is a plant comming online, in Indiana I think, which will be able to turn most organic matter and petrolium products into oil with a net gain of energy. I.e. the oil will produce more energy than whent into producing it.

TDP Plant probably. I find the technology exciting. Actually I'd love to hear your thoughts on it GR.

[Warcraft3]

Hi Russ, In 1% of the world's deuterium lies 500,000 times more energy than will be burned by all fossil fuels combined.

Wow...


If we solve fusion, we go to the stars, if we don't, we go to the stone age. At the end of this century there will be no commercial oil, gas and maybe no more coal. (before people think that coal will last for 200 years they should realize that that is calculated at present rates of usage).


So who (if anyone) is working on a solution to this problem?

What progress has been made and is there any chance of it being solved in time? I havent researched this area, so if you know some information please throw it my way....




Russ

[themuzicman]

(As mentioned before, there is a process to take almost any organic material and speeding up the natural process of making oil such that we can create it using less energy than the process requires. I believe it's similar to how we make fake diamonds.)

[Da Lone-Warrior]

One thing to keep in mind is that peak oil is not about waking up one morning and finding the wells have suddenly gone dry. Peak oil is about the rate of increase in demand catastrophically overshooting the supply – even if that supply can somehow be sustained or even made to increase.

Our infrastructure is based on not just on oil, but on cheap oil. There is some flexibility in that infrastructure and it can absorb a certain rate of increasing cost. Peak oil is about when the rate of increasing cost of recovery, and new demand coming on line, cause end-point costs to exceed the ability of the infrastructure to absorb the rate of increasing cost as demand flexibility. At that point, hysteresis in the infrastructure prevents a smooth transition to a new infrastructure with a different supply/demand regime.

So you would suggest perhaps a more modest than EU tax on oil that takes into account the short run ability of the US's infrastructure to adapt?


A non-trivial aspect in this case is that modifying the infrastructure itself entails the use of the inflexible commodity. I agree with Glenn that we may need to tap all the oil reserves we can find if we are close to the limit of supply/demand flexibility. What I worry about is that we don’t where that limit is. We know it’s not $70/barrel. But is it $80, $100? If we tap the reserves too soon, we will just do with them what we did with the rest of our oil: use them to fuel lifestyles that pretend the oil will never run out.

It would be nice to find a way to do all the preparation needed to quickly tap the reserves, even if it entails a little environmental stress, and yet stop short of actually using the oil. That way, when it becomes glaringly apparent that the energy will be needed to rescue ourselves from our cheap oil infrastructure, we can perhaps find the will to use it for such. However, I worry we lack maturity to do this. If we make the remaining oil easy to use, we’ll use it; and then when we run out, we’ll really be out.

-Neil

This is why we have got to change people's attitudes. None of this demanding cheaper short run oil prices at all cost or "technology/innovation will save the day" blind faith.

dlw

[grmorton]

Don't know if any one has mentioned this yet or not but there is a plant comming online, in Indiana I think, which will be able to turn most organic matter and petrolium products into oil with a net gain of energy. I.e. the oil will produce more energy than whent into producing it.

This is what is called a perpetual motion machine. They are impossible. Nothing produces more energy than that which is put into it. The first law of Thermodynamics says that energy is conserved. This has never been seen to be violated.

[Sparko]

This is what is called a perpetual motion machine. They are impossible. Nothing produces more energy than that which is put into it. The first law of Thermodynamics says that energy is conserved. This has never been seen to be violated.

I think he means man-made energy (like from electrical plants and such) the additional energy used to convert the waste into oil most likely comes from chemical reactions from various biological processes and products involved. The stored energy in the waste products themselves is converted into a different form: crude oil. So the resultant energy of the oil is probably less than the total energy stored in the raw materials and the energy fed into the process, but MORE than the energy fed into the process itself.

---


"...for every 100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process."

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829


also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

[NeilUnreal]

So you would suggest perhaps a more modest than EU tax on oil that takes into account the short run ability of the US's infrastructure to adapt?

It’s not a bad idea. The main problem is, we seem to be even more adept at wasting tax revenue than at wasting oil. :lol: It would nice to have a tax, though, as a brake on consumption, especially if the monies could go into some kind of escrow that was managed by scientists and planners.


This is why we have got to change people's attitudes.

I agree, this is the real key. A planning professor I took courses under as an undergrad used to love pointing out how much more effective it is to change attitudes than to legislate.

-Neil

[Sparko]

The problem with a tax used as a deterent to oil consumption is that all you are doing is punishing the poor and middle class. The rich will still buy oil and gas no matter what it costs, industry will still use oil, but the common man who is trying to support a family of 4 will suffer because he can no longer afford the products made with the expensive oil or afford to drive to work (and no, public transportation is NOT always a viable alternative)

[Da Lone-Warrior]

It’s not a bad idea. The main problem is, we seem to be even more adept at wasting tax revenue than at wasting oil. :lol: It would nice to have a tax, though, as a brake on consumption, especially if the monies could go into some kind of escrow that was managed by scientists and planners.

Some of it definitely would need to go there. The rest would be funnelled back to consumers to defray the added costs, particularly for those with less income...


I agree, this is the real key. A planning professor I took courses under as an undergrad used to love pointing out how much more effective it is to change attitudes than to legislate.

-Neil

All legislation's effectiveness depends on the attitudes of the people towards the proposed legal change. Legal enforcement is too costly and relatively unreliable otherwise.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

The problem with a tax used as a deterent to oil consumption is that all you are doing is punishing the poor and middle class. The rich will still buy oil and gas no matter what it costs, industry will still use oil, but the common man who is trying to support a family of 4 will suffer because he can no longer afford the products made with the expensive oil or afford to drive to work (and no, public transportation is NOT always a viable alternative)

When the tax is coupled with an income transfer, it will make it so the net effect of the tax is more progressive. It'll also keep the gov't from mismanaging the money and make it politically feasible in the first place.

dlw

[grmorton]

Wow...




So who (if anyone) is working on a solution to this problem?

What progress has been made and is there any chance of it being solved in time? I havent researched this area, so if you know some information please throw it my way....




Russ

Hi Russ,

The reference for the deuterium value is

Energy and Human Evolution
by David Price
Please address correspondence to Dr. Price,
254 Carpenter Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853.
From Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies
Volume 16, Number 4, March 1995, pp. 301-19
1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

That article is on the internet.

There is ITER, an international consortium of countries trying to build the first break-even fusion reactor. If I recall correctly it will be built by 2012 or something like that. There are huge technical issues. We don't have the material science to know how long the container will last. 100 million degrees is rather toasty and there are neutrons given off by the process which will weaken any materials in the container.

You can probably find what you want by doing a google on ITER

[grmorton]

It’s not a bad idea. The main problem is, we seem to be even more adept at wasting tax revenue than at wasting oil. :lol: It would nice to have a tax, though, as a brake on consumption, especially if the monies could go into some kind of escrow that was managed by scientists and planners.



I agree, this is the real key. A planning professor I took courses under as an undergrad used to love pointing out how much more effective it is to change attitudes than to legislate.

-Neil

Yeah, kinda like the Texas lottery which was supposed to go to education but most of which goes to government waste. The only person less trustworthy than a used car salesman is a politician

[Simeon]

This is a political issue. :doh:

[Sparko]

When the tax is coupled with an income transfer, it will make it so the net effect of the tax is more progressive. It'll also keep the gov't from mismanaging the money and make it politically feasible in the first place.

dlw

:barf:

So you want to "transfer" money to the poor from the rich so they won't feel the impact so much? Then how is it a deterant?

catch 22.

If you really want to be fair and limit oil to 'deter' its use, the only across the board fair way would be to institute rationing.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists. I have been depressed. I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.

Glenn, you ought to hang out a bit at The Oil Drum. I have seen your name invoked there on quite a few occasions:

http://www.theoildrum.com/

I argue the position that we are not yet at peak, but we have got to get our act in gear in a hurry. I am in the minority, though. I think most believe we have peaked.

I also started an energy blog several months ago, which is why I haven't been posting here as much:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/

It has been keeping me pretty busy. You guys didn't really think my name was Fedmahn Kassad, did you? :teeth:

Cheers,

FK aka R2

[grmorton]

Glenn, you ought to hang out a bit at The Oil Drum. I have seen your name invoked there on quite a few occasions:

http://www.theoildrum.com/

I argue the position that we are not yet at peak, but we have got to get our act in gear in a hurry. I am in the minority, though. I think most believe we have peaked.

I also started an energy blog several months ago, which is why I haven't been posting here as much:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/

It has been keeping me pretty busy. You guys didn't really think my name was Fedmahn Kassad, did you? :teeth:

Cheers,

FK aka R2

I have had one guest posting at the OilDrum under a pseudonym--only the 2nd time in my life I have done that. THe Oil Drum is an excellent source for information--depressing, but the info is valid.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Yeah, kinda like the Texas lottery which was supposed to go to education but most of which goes to government waste. The only person less trustworthy than a used car salesman is a politician

There are such things as firewalls and the transfers would keep the money from getting wasted.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

:barf:

So you want to "transfer" money to the poor from the rich so they won't feel the impact so much? Then how is it a deterant?

1. Consumption taxes tend to be regressive. This is hard on families and not a good thing. However, if you coupled a consumption tax with an income transfer going in equal amounts to all adults then it would make the net effect progressive.

2. It needs to be targeted more towards the poor, because we're not going to be able to transfer all the money back to people as we'll need a good deal of it to fund long-term basic research into alternative energies like fusion.

3. Also, politically if the transfer is egalitarian, it will make it politically easier to pass as most folks like to receive an income transfer. It's the spoon full of sugar that'll make the medicine go down.

4. I don't know if you've taken a basic course in Economics, but it can be shown very easily with a simple graph how a price increase of a good, due to a tax, can be coupled with an income transfer, at the same level or less of the revenue raised by the tax, with the net result of a reduced level of consumption of the taxed good.


catch 22.

nope.

If you really want to be fair and limit oil to 'deter' its use, the only across the board fair way would be to institute rationing.[/QUOTE]

There is no good reason to insist that the only "fair" policies dealing with this issue are policies that have a net neutral effect on income distribution.

The fact of the matter is that income differentials are due to a number of reasons, 1. earnings ability(from education and experience) 2. How long and hard people work. 3. Monopoly power (like with the effects of professional organizations that set up barriers to entry or the rents accrued by politicians and some top executives(Ken Lay?) from their positions or even union-workers to a lesser degree.) 4. Luck.(Being the right person at the right time and yielding a windfall)

Policies that tend to reduce income inequality need to consider the adverse effects on the first two categories, but they can be justified some due to the last two categories and the negative externalities due to poverty and extremes of income inequality.

Either way, my point is that higher taxes on oil is "the" way to force ourselves to conserve and stretch out our existing supply and raise the funds needed for basic research into long-run alternatives and that this can become politically feasible if it were couple with income transfers. The fact those transfers would tend to reduce income inequality and be perceived as "unfair" by some shd not rule them out.
dlw

[Simeon]

Darth Xena Hostess;

This is an open forum area for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary.

:teeth:

[wattsr1]

Yeah, kinda like the Texas lottery which was supposed to go to education but most of which goes to government waste. The only person less trustworthy than a used car salesman is a politician
Where I live, some car salesmen end up politicians. :smile:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Well, where I live, we have a viable third party system and decent competition between the main two parties and people take the time to read the news and vote and so politicians keep on their toes more.

Politics is never fun. It's where we deal with our nastiest ugliest conflicts and where the freedom of $peech always matters, since politics is intercourse by another means since someone is always getting frenched.

But we're not going to deal with Peak Oil if we start off with a defeatist attitude about politics. We don't have to be starry-eyed idealists or think we're going to bring on the millenium to make reforms. It's been done in the past, and its been well-proven what happens when reforms don't happen(aka Argentina et al).

So let's not let our anti-gov't prejudices hamper the problem-solving dialogue too much.
dlw

[Mark Little]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists. I have been depressed. I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.While this is perhaps the end of cheap energy, it is not, thankfully, the end of energy. As I understand it, Ethanol already accounts for 40% of Bazil's vehicle fuel.

The passing of peak oil will, I suspect, mean that the price of oil will be subject to the wild fluctuations that can occur whenever demand outweighs supply even slightly. This will be exceptionally annoying, I suspect, but I think it will galvanise the political system to throw resources at alternative solutions - and I think they are there (just more expensive).

I have no doubt that cheap energy will fade to a distant memory within my lifetime, but I don't think that developed economies will collapse as a result. Even in my childhood, we used much less energy than we do now, but we survived and enjoyed life in the process.

I think the last energy crisis had a much bigger impact on the economy than the current escalating costs and this indicates to me that there is now capacity to handle this sort of situation, even if it does cause a lowering of the standard of living during our weaning from oil.

[grmorton]

While this is perhaps the end of cheap energy, it is not, thankfully, the end of energy. As I understand it, Ethanol already accounts for 40% of Bazil's vehicle fuel.

Let's look at Brazil's energy independence miracle a bit more closely. The press always talks about how we should do the same. First off, the yearly per capita oil consumption in Brazil is abut 3.5 barrels. In the US it is 25. Since Brazil produces 3.32 bbl/person/year, they only have to make up a gap of .18 bbl/person/year with ethanol. The US produces 8.37 bbl/person/year, we have to make up about 16-17 bbl/person/year in ethanol. The problem is totally different.
Secondly, you can grow sugar cane all over Brazil, you can't grow it everywhere in the US or in the UK or Russia.




The passing of peak oil will, I suspect, mean that the price of oil will be subject to the wild fluctuations that can occur whenever demand outweighs supply even slightly.

No, it will rise with a constancy and the only fluctuation being when economic recession causes a lapse in demand. With depletion continuing, such undershoots of demand will be very short lived.


This will be exceptionally annoying, I suspect, but I think it will galvanise the political system to throw resources at alternative solutions - and I think they are there (just more expensive).

Name them.


I have no doubt that cheap energy will fade to a distant memory within my lifetime, but I don't think that developed economies will collapse as a result. Even in my childhood, we used much less energy than we do now, but we survived and enjoyed life in the process.

Absolutely. I grew up on the southern Great Plains and we didn't have air conditioning. We didn't even have it in automobiles. But there is a big difference between now and then. When I was born the US had a population of 150 million. Today it is essentially 300 million. So, to go back to the energy use per capita that we had in the 1950s means basically going back to the lifestyle and energy use of the US when it had 75 million people--say, 1900.

Back in 1900, the US was a rural nation. Most people lived on farms. We may go back to that state of affairs.


I think the last energy crisis had a much bigger impact on the economy than the current escalating costs and this indicates to me that there is now capacity to handle this sort of situation, even if it does cause a lowering of the standard of living during our weaning from oil.

On an inflation weighted basis, we have not yet even matched the last energy crisis. To match the $36/bbl of 1980, oil would need to be at or over $90/bbl if one used 2006 dollars. In 2004 dollars the value is $87.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

While this is perhaps the end of cheap energy, it is not, thankfully, the end of energy. As I understand it, Ethanol already accounts for 40% of Bazil's vehicle fuel.

This is an oft-repeated myth. The actual number, for a country with a much lower per capita energy usage than we have in the U.S., is 10%:

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/rapier/2006/0623.html

FK

[NeilUnreal]

So, to go back to the energy use per capita that we had in the 1950s means basically going back to the lifestyle and energy use of the US when it had 75 million people--say, 1900... Back in 1900, the US was a rural nation. Most people lived on farms. We may go back to that state of affairs.

Based on technological advances and accumulated capital infrastructure* since the 1900s, I'm thinking that if peak oil really does get really bad, the difference will be somewhere in-between. Probably something like the depression years of the 1930s, but with people migrating back onto the farms and villages instead of away from them.

-Neil

*e.g. Even if it falls into disrepair, our current road network is much better than what was around in the 1930s -- albeit we may be forced to travel it using bicycles and mopeds. :lol:

[grmorton]

Based on technological advances and accumulated capital infrastructure* since the 1900s, I'm thinking that if peak oil really does get really bad, the difference will be somewhere in-between. Probably something like the depression years of the 1930s, but with people migrating back onto the farms and villages instead of away from them.

-Neil

*e.g. Even if it falls into disrepair, our current road network is much better than what was around in the 1930s -- albeit we may be forced to travel it using bicycles and mopeds. :lol:

You are probably right. Just got my Sept Scientific American and it is on Energy Future. Going away to read.....

[Sparko]

I am with Muz on this. I think we might be in for a crunch for a while but that will only spur on innovation. Maybe expensive oil is what we need to get us off our butts and develop fuel cell technology and fusion power.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I am with Muz on this. I think we might be in for a crunch for a while but that will only spur on innovation. Maybe expensive oil is what we need to get us off our butts and develop fuel cell technology and fusion power.

It's always wise to listen to people who know what they're talking about.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Based on technological advances and accumulated capital infrastructure* since the 1900s, I'm thinking that if peak oil really does get really bad, the difference will be somewhere in-between. Probably something like the depression years of the 1930s, but with people migrating back onto the farms and villages instead of away from them.

-Neil

*e.g. Even if it falls into disrepair, our current road network is much better than what was around in the 1930s -- albeit we may be forced to travel it using bicycles and mopeds. :lol:

As the price of oil goes up, we'll probably first shift more towards like EU with increased urban concentration and a significant decline in the outer suburbs and greater use of public transportation and bikes and walking.

And the increases in prices are going to increase the demand for stability or socialization. What I'm arguing for is that sooner is better than later and if Glen is right and invention/discovery is more important than innovation, significant taxes on oil are going to be needed to help fund the int'l collaboration in looking for long-run alternative energy sources.

If the concern is for the economy, it is a fact that people with lower incomes spend a higher percent of their income and so progressive income transfers will tend to increase aggregate demand by more. while decreasing crime and other problems. income transfers will make it easier for lower-income males to get married, which will also save costs, as it is cheaper for two people to live together than to live apart.
dlw

[Sparko]

It's always wise to listen to people who know what they're talking about.

dlw

oh no. a logical conundrum! That is sage advice but you don't know what you are talking about, so should I listen to you?

It does not compute! error Will Robinson! Error!!!

[grmorton]

I am with Muz on this. I think we might be in for a crunch for a while but that will only spur on innovation. Maybe expensive oil is what we need to get us off our butts and develop fuel cell technology and fusion power.

One thing to remember is that expensive oil means that all the solutions get more expensive

[grmorton]

As the price of oil goes up, we'll probably first shift more towards like EU with increased urban concentration and a significant decline in the outer suburbs and greater use of public transportation and bikes and walking.

And the increases in prices are going to increase the demand for stability or socialization. What I'm arguing for is that sooner is better than later and if Glen is right and invention/discovery is more important than innovation, significant taxes on oil are going to be needed to help fund the int'l collaboration in looking for long-run alternative energy sources.

Invention and discovery come from the private sector, not from the government.


If the concern is for the economy, it is a fact that people with lower incomes spend a higher percent of their income and so progressive income transfers will tend to increase aggregate demand by more. while decreasing crime and other problems. income transfers will make it easier for lower-income males to get married, which will also save costs, as it is cheaper for two people to live together than to live apart.
dlw

Unfortunately, that means that those who have the money to solve the problem will be taxed highly and the money will not be available for the solution. The Socialistic countries of the Baltic and Russia, as well as CHina 30 years ago, made sure that no one was too rich and that all shared. But almost all those societies were not very innovative.

[Mark Little]

This is an oft-repeated myth. The actual number, for a country with a much lower per capita energy usage than we have in the U.S., is 10%:The article you cited appears to deal with total oil consumption while I was talking about vehicles, although I really should have been talking about gasoline powered vehicles as I'm not sure of the diesel/bio-diesel figures. Cars have a shorter life than generating plant, so one would expect to see the fuel profile of vehicles to change first.

Fixed power generation does have alternatives to oil, of which coal is one and there are reserves of about 200 years (at present consumption), I think. In addition to bio-fuels there are other (expensive) alternatives such as solar and wind although it is likely that will be more suitable for a distributed population than for the mega cities. This may cause a drift from the cities back to the more rural areas, perhaps?

I think you have hit the key, with your comment about the consumption of power of countries like the US to, say, a country like Brazil. Power consumption in developed countries must drop. This will result in a drop in the standard of living as we know it now and I don't think there is any doubt about that.

The real question is whether we will have enough resources to have food, water, shelter and good health, as opposed to having millions of cars driving around with one person in each car and flashy houses that require air conditioning to be liveable. The energy levels we (think we) need is more in the mind than the environment, I suspect.

[Sparko]

One thing to remember is that expensive oil means that all the solutions get more expensive

yup thats true. But when we really feel the pain, maybe it will spur invention. if the oil companies see their product becoming scarce they may start to better fund replacement technologies and compete with each other to beat the others to the market. That is where the innovations will come from I think. As long as the oil companies can sit back and rake in the cash from oil they have little incentive to seek out replacement technologies in earnest.


PS> I am NOT for taxing oil to create the pain, like dlw was suggesting. I am talking about the regular price increases as oil becomes scarcer if peak has been reached. Which, if you are right, will be the inevitable result.

Although I am not sure if we have really reached/passed peak oil yet, or if what is happening is really a result of the wars going on in the middle east interrupting oil production or maybe the arabs are artificially holding back production to drive the price higher.

[Fedmahn Kassad]

The article you cited appears to deal with total oil consumption while I was talking about vehicles...

Actually, I wrote that article I cited. :teeth: It deals with both. Diesel is the majority vehicle fuel of choice in Brazil, at about 54% of all autos. Gasoline comes in at 26%. Ethanol comes in at 17% by volume, but since it has less energy than gasoline the BTU equivalent is only 10% of the vehicle fleet.

FK

[grmorton]

Although I am not sure if we have really reached/passed peak oil yet, or if what is happening is really a result of the wars going on in the middle east interrupting oil production or maybe the arabs are artificially holding back production to drive the price higher.

Lebanon and Israel, along with Syria have almost no oil. Oil has not been affected by the current war. Also, since the war has only been going on a month and since the oil price has remained at around $72-$76 throughout that time, you can be sure that no one is holding back on production.

Where have you been the last 3 years during the rise of oil's price?

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004_and_2005

[Sparko]

Lebanon and Israel, along with Syria have almost no oil. Oil has not been affected by the current war. Also, since the war has only been going on a month and since the oil price has remained at around $72-$76 throughout that time, you can be sure that no one is holding back on production.

Where have you been the last 3 years during the rise of oil's price?

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004_and_2005

yeah the prices started skyrocketing right after we invaded Iraq.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Invention and discovery come from the private sector, not from the government.

Give some respect, glenn. Your prejudices about gov't aren't helping things...
Basic science always requires public funding. Corporations also need gov't support, so the distinction is not so clear cut. Innovation comes from the private sector, not invention or basic science.


Unfortunately, that means that those who have the money to solve the problem will be taxed highly and the money will not be available for the solution. The Socialistic countries of the Baltic and Russia, as well as CHina 30 years ago, made sure that no one was too rich and that all shared. But almost all those societies were not very innovative.

You really don't have a clue about what you're talking about. I'm not talking about USSR or even EU-style socialism. I'm talking about taxing oil significantly and then compensating with income transfers. That will by no means mean bleeding dry the wealthy who can fund the capital to innovate. We need the transfers to make the taxes politically feasible and to keep the economy going. The taxes will transfer money from the oil-producers to the US gov't and to the US people and to generate the funds needed to research "fusion". That's going to take funds one way or the other and it will change people's behavior enough to buy us more time to find a longterm solution without us having to subsidize political cronies.

dlw

[Mark Little]

Actually, I wrote that article I cited. :teeth: It deals with both. Diesel is the majority vehicle fuel of choice in Brazil, at about 54% of all autos. Gasoline comes in at 26%. Ethanol comes in at 17% by volume, but since it has less energy than gasoline the BTU equivalent is only 10% of the vehicle fleet.Fair enough. I sit corrected.:wink:

[grmorton]

yeah the prices started skyrocketing right after we invaded Iraq.

Simultaneity doesn't mean cause and effect. Just because all cancer victims drink water does not mean one can logically conclude that water causes cancer. The demand increases from China and India have been driving the price rise. When we invaded Iraq, the world's spare capacity was 5.6 million bbl/day.

"As a result, according to EIA estimates, surplus global oil production capacity, which was as high as 5.6 million barrels per day in 2002, plummeted to 1.8 million barrels per day in 2003, and has been around 1 million barrels per day during most of 2004 to the present. " http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/060503/twipprint.html

Yes, Iraq took out immediately about half of that capacity but it came back to 1.5 million bbl/day fairly quickly. Getting Iraqi production above 2 million per day has been more problematical. But even throughout the interval you are discussing at least 1.5 million bbl/day of reduced capacity was due to demand in Asia.

[grmorton]

Give some respect, glenn. Your prejudices about gov't aren't helping things...
Basic science always requires public funding. Corporations also need gov't support, so the distinction is not so clear cut. Innovation comes from the private sector, not invention or basic science.

Hmm. I wonder who I was working for with my 3 inventions? I thought I was working for the private sector. Thanks for telling me that I am not an inventor.

One question, are your predjudices FOR government helping things?





You really don't have a clue about what you're talking about. I'm not talking about USSR or even EU-style socialism. I'm talking about taxing oil significantly and then compensating with income transfers. That will by no means mean bleeding dry the wealthy who can fund the capital to innovate.
We need the transfers to make the taxes politically feasible and to keep the economy going. The taxes will transfer money from the oil-producers to the US gov't and to the US people and to generate the funds needed to research "fusion". That's going to take funds one way or the other and it will change people's behavior enough to buy us more time to find a longterm solution without us having to subsidize political cronies.

dlw

Economics is science, so here is a science lesson. I sent this (slightly edited this morning) to a longtime friend yesterday when he asked what oil companies were going to do with the huge profits.

First off, the press is not representing things correctly. Microsoft has a profit margin of 28% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft Coco Cola gets 22% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=KO Intel gets 18% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=INTC and ExxonMobil gets 11% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=xom Don't believe me? Look at the links. Exxon gets about the same profit margin as does TimeWarner http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TWX [edited to add-grm] BP has a 7.62% profit margin, only slightly greater than a moneymarket account. One I have gets me slightly over 5%. ConocoPhillips gets 9% profit; Chevron gets 8% profit.

With those kinds of profits and the known riskyness of the oil business, why not invest in a bank? Speaking of which, Bank of America gets a 30% profit margin.

The large profits are large profits only based upon the absolute $$. What people don't look at is the even bigger MEGAPILES of money that must be invested (read that as risked) to get that big profit. A single offshore deepwater field can cost more than $1.5 billion dollars. You and I don't have that kind of money to risk on a field (which might fail to give the money back); Exxon does. Deepwater dryholes in the Gulf of Mexico cost $100 million to $140 million. That means that you have just thrown $100 million into a hole in the ground and poured cement down it. I am paid to tell oil companies where to drill to find oil. When I fail, I cost them that kind of money.

If the profits are taxed, it means that there won't be money to drill wells to find new oil and the price of oil will go even higher resulting in (perversely) more profits from the old fields. But, it will mean that the oil company is going out of business. If they don't find new oil, they go out of business.

I will add two things. If they go out of business you don't have oil and secondly, that at $38 per bbl, the returns on investment in the oil industry were about what a bank could give you. And given that a bank could guarentee your money, the low oil prices of the past decade meant that there was little investment money for the oil industry. That has contributed to where we are energywise right now.

One must realize that the costs of developing a deepwater field, which may only last 7 years are tremendous. $1.5 billion is not uncommon. Occasionally fields don't work out as planned meaning that after spending such quantities of money, the field doesn't give up the oil that was expected. The successful fields must pay for the unsuccessful fields and for the exploration dry holes.

[Sparko]

You really don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
dlw

oh Golly Gee Whizikins dlw. Is this the same Glenn that you told us that Muz should not talk against because Glenn knew what he was talking about and Muz didn't???

you flip-flopped pretty quick when Glenn didn't agree with your idea to let the Government handle the situation with taxes.

The government will just screw things up worse. The private industry will work harder to find a solution than the government will. The government is too worried about stepping on the toes of voters. Private industry is being hit in it's collective wallet. They have a very strong incentive to find solutions.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

oh Golly Gee Whizikins dlw. Is this the same Glenn that you told us that Muz should not talk against because Glenn knew what he was talking about and Muz didn't???

Sparky, when it comes to Economics and what I was saying, Glenn was out of his area of expertise. The things he said just didn't follow.

I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to cars or preterism.

So please pray for the gift of discernment.
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Hmm. I wonder who I was working for with my 3 inventions? I thought I was working for the private sector. Thanks for telling me that I am not an inventor.

GRMorton, that doesn't matter. Would your private sector employees have been able to hire you to invent for them if it were not for the support they were able to get from the gov't?

The private sector is very much intermeshed with the public gov't.


One question, are your predjudices FOR government helping things?

My "prejudices" are that gov't matters one way or the other. It is where we work out the rules of the game that govern our conflicts. It is where the institutions or working rules are reformed. The issue as I see it is not manicheistic where gov'ts are for helping things or mucking things up, the issue is whose interests will the gov't protect ultimately.

It is in our interests for the gov't to force us to conserve oil and to accrue more of the value going to oil producers. This can be done in a way that makes it easier to adjust to higher oil-based prices.



Economics is science, so here is a science lesson. I sent this (slightly edited this morning) to a longtime friend yesterday when he asked what oil companies were going to do with the huge profits.

First off, the press is not representing things correctly. Microsoft has a profit margin of 28% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft Coco Cola gets 22% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=KO Intel gets 18% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=INTC and ExxonMobil gets 11% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=xom Don't believe me? Look at the links. Exxon gets about the same profit margin as does TimeWarner http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TWX [edited to add-grm] BP has a 7.62% profit margin, only slightly greater than a moneymarket account. One I have gets me slightly over 5%. ConocoPhillips gets 9% profit; Chevron gets 8% profit.

With those kinds of profits and the known riskyness of the oil business, why not invest in a bank? Speaking of which, Bank of America gets a 30% profit margin.

The large profits are large profits only based upon the absolute $$. What people don't look at is the even bigger MEGAPILES of money that must be invested (read that as risked) to get that big profit. A single offshore deepwater field can cost more than $1.5 billion dollars. You and I don't have that kind of money to risk on a field (which might fail to give the money back); Exxon does. Deepwater dryholes in the Gulf of Mexico cost $100 million to $140 million. That means that you have just thrown $100 million into a hole in the ground and poured cement down it. I am paid to tell oil companies where to drill to find oil. When I fail, I cost them that kind of money.

If the profits are taxed, it means that there won't be money to drill wells to find new oil and the price of oil will go even higher resulting in (perversely) more profits from the old fields. But, it will mean that the oil company is going out of business. If they don't find new oil, they go out of business.

I am not for taxing profits. I am for taxing oil. This might cut down on the price going to producers, but it shd also reduce its variability. It's also possible that there could be some subsidies to reduce the fixed costs of oil exploration.


I will add two things. If they go out of business you don't have oil and secondly, that at $38 per bbl, the returns on investment in the oil industry were about what a bank could give you. And given that a bank could guarentee your money, the low oil prices of the past decade meant that there was little investment money for the oil industry. That has contributed to where we are energywise right now.

One must realize that the costs of developing a deepwater field, which may only last 7 years are tremendous. $1.5 billion is not uncommon. Occasionally fields don't work out as planned meaning that after spending such quantities of money, the field doesn't give up the oil that was expected. The successful fields must pay for the unsuccessful fields and for the exploration dry holes.

Thanks for the lesson.

dlw

[Sparko]

Sparky, when it comes to Economics and what I was saying, Glenn was out of his area of expertise. The things he said just didn't follow.

I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to cars or preterism.

So please pray for the gift of discernment.
dlw

I have the gift of discernment and when you post stuff like that my "discernment" meter starts throwing off sparks.

[grmorton]

Sparky, when it comes to Economics and what I was saying, Glenn was out of his area of expertise. The things he said just didn't follow.

But you haven't shown what is wrong. Just being out of an area of expertise does not automatically mean one is wrong. The proper approach is to say why.

BTW, The Venezuelan government has control of most of the oil industry down there. Their output is plummeting on the part of the industry they control. Way to go government!

BTW, were my profit margins wrong? Are you going to teach me oil industry economics, something I have dealt with for 35 years? Sure, I still have much more to learn, but if you haven't dealt with oil industry economics, how are you going to teach me?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I have the gift of discernment and when you post stuff like that my "discernment" meter starts throwing off sparks.

sorry dude, I beg to differ.

dlw

[Sparko]

sorry dude, I beg to differ.

dlw

of course you do, you have the discernment skills of a broken sieve.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Let me start off by apologizing for my remark made above about you not knowing what you were talking about, it went too far, but so did you in associating what I was saying with communism or the elimination of all concentrations of wealth. That's like not even listening and dealing with what I was saying. And I did go on to say why I said that.


But you haven't shown what is wrong. Just being out of an area of expertise does not automatically mean one is wrong. The proper approach is to say why.

Here's why.

It's going to take resources and cooperation to fund the sort of fusion research that will be needed to replace oil long-term. It also is such a significant finding that it cannot be left up only to private industry. Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need to both pool resources and prevent duplication of investigation on this and ensure that the findings are made available widely.

That's the nature of basic science. It requires public funding, and as we're all in the same boat wrt the potential gravity of a serious shortage in oil, we're going to need int'l coordination/gov't on this and US leadership. If the US joins EU and other more developed nation in taxing oil then they can also join them in sponsoring research into longterm alternatives. In the mean while, the taxes will reduce our demand some. A 133% increase of the price of gas to EU-levels would reduce demand by 13% if the elasticity of demand were .1. I don't remember the elasticity, but I know it's low. Here's a source you could get for us (http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/opecrv/v27y2003i1p1-8.html#abstract), maybe...

I do know that there is a tendency for the price elasticity of demand to rise when the price rises. As such, if the price fluctuations for crude oil reflect, in part, extremely inelastic demand, as well as speculations, and Geopolitiks, then the tax would make the demand somewhat more elastic which would tend to reduce its instability and it would direct gov't's attention more to constraining speculation and promoting stability in prices.



BTW, The Venezuelan government has control of most of the oil industry down there. Their output is plummeting on the part of the industry they control. Way to go government!

non sequitur. Wow, a non-democratically accountable gov't swimming in oil wealth fails to steward its resource well. Let's not over-generalize...


BTW, were my profit margins wrong? Are you going to teach me oil industry economics, something I have dealt with for 35 years? Sure, I still have much more to learn, but if you haven't dealt with oil industry economics, how are you going to teach me?

I know you know more about the economics of the oil industry than I do. I am more than happy to learn from you. I understand the tax would change the industry quite a bit. But I fail to see why that tanks my idea. So far my idea is simple, obviously it would need to be adapted some to deal with institutions of the oil industry and the nature of the US's public infrastructure. It may also need to be coupled with some additional public support of oil exploration and, perhaps, restructuring of corporate expenses for oil companies.

However, if EU is able to get away with taxing oil then I see no good reason we can't do the same. We needn't emulate all of the other facets of the EU's political regimes to learn from them on this particular one. Once again, the key thing is to couple taxing oil with making income transfers to defray the effect of the price increase on consumer spending and our economy.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

of course you do, you have the discernment skills of a broken sieve.

I'm fallible, but I have areas that I have studied where I am less fallible.

And, you were right about me being wrong in the comment I made to GRMorton. It overreacted.

So please, let's just not interact with each other off-topic anymore on this thread.

dlw

[grmorton]

Thank you for the substantive reply.


Let me start off by apologizing for my remark made above about you not knowing what you were talking about, it went too far, but so did you in associating what I was saying with communism or the elimination of all concentrations of wealth. That's like not even listening and dealing with what I was saying. And I did go on to say why I said that.

I usually do go too far--it's what I do!




Here's why.

It's going to take resources and cooperation to fund the sort of fusion research that will be needed to replace oil long-term. It also is such a significant finding that it cannot be left up only to private industry. Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need to both pool resources and prevent duplication of investigation on this and ensure that the findings are made available widely.

Fusion, yes, it will need cooperation. But that isn't usually what people who want taxes on oil to go for. They talk about wind, solar, tidal etc. To solve fusion, there is only one way, cooperation. But the rest of it can be handled privately. Governments simply don't handle energy well. I will give another example below.


That's the nature of basic science. It requires public funding, and as we're all in the same boat wrt the potential gravity of a serious shortage in oil, we're going to need int'l coordination/gov't on this and US leadership. If the US joins EU and other more developed nation in taxing oil then they can also join them in sponsoring research into longterm alternatives. In the mean while, the taxes will reduce our demand some. A 133% increase of the price of gas to EU-levels would reduce demand by 13% if the elasticity of demand were .1. I don't remember the elasticity, but I know it's low. Here's a source you could get for us (http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/opecrv/v27y2003i1p1-8.html#abstract), maybe...

Actually I don't agree with the first sentence. It is the nature of BIG science, not basic science that it needs funding.







non sequitur. Wow, a non-democratically accountable gov't swimming in oil wealth fails to steward its resource well. Let's not over-generalize...

Chavez was elected. THere are many examples of governments trying to subsidize various energy solutions and messing things up. Brazil's subsidy on natural gas has lead to to many vehicles using CNG and cutting off the gas supply to electrical generation. It is best for the governments to let the markets work.




I know you know more about the economics of the oil industry than I do. I am more than happy to learn from you. I understand the tax would change the industry quite a bit. But I fail to see why that tanks my idea. So far my idea is simple, obviously it would need to be adapted some to deal with institutions of the oil industry and the nature of the US's public infrastructure. It may also need to be coupled with some additional public support of oil exploration and, perhaps, restructuring of corporate expenses for oil companies.

The thing that I think tanks the concept lies in the poor rates of return throughout most of the past 20 years for the oil companies. The profit margins being just above bank rates has meant that research departments have been axed, hundreds of thousands of people who can find oil were thrown out of work and are now working in other industries. If the taxes take the oil companies back to that state of affairs, there won't be anyone to find you oil while you try to solve fusion.


However, if EU is able to get away with taxing oil then I see no good reason we can't do the same. We needn't emulate all of the other facets of the EU's political regimes to learn from them on this particular one. Once again, the key thing is to couple taxing oil with making income transfers to defray the effect of the price increase on consumer spending and our economy.

dlw

The EU uses it for their social system, medicine etc rather than for finding new energy sources. I have lived and seen it in the UK.

You can have the last word on this. I am involved in a writing project and have another thread that might just take some time. Enjoyed it.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Fusion, yes, it will need cooperation. But that isn't usually what people who want taxes on oil to go for. They talk about wind, solar, tidal etc. To solve fusion, there is only one way, cooperation. But the rest of it can be handled privately. Governments simply don't handle energy well. I will give another example below.

I agree that decentralization in decision-making is a good thing whenever possible, this is not a private vs public thing but rather an application of the Catholic Social Thought principle of Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity holds that no higher level of organization should perform any function that can be handled efficiently and effectively at a lower level of organization by human persons who, individually or in groups, are closer to the problems and closer to the ground. However, some forms of interdependency are so far reaching that a concentration of governance or decision-making is required to deal with them.

I agree with the need to leave other stuff to private initiative and my idea does that.


Actually I don't agree with the first sentence. It is the nature of BIG science, not basic science that it needs funding.

dlw: There needs to be funding that is not geared towards private remuneration. If a project is small enough, I suppose altruistic individual researchers could undertake it based on their earnings from elsewhere.


Chavez was elected. THere are many examples of governments trying to subsidize various energy solutions and messing things up. Brazil's subsidy on natural gas has lead to to many vehicles using CNG and cutting off the gas supply to electrical generation. It is best for the governments to let the markets work.

dlw: Be that as it may, elections in Latin America are never perfect given their weaker institutions and higher percent of people in poverty who are willing to vote based on simple rewards promised before and after elections.

I'm not saying that programs can't mess up, I'm just saying that gov't is involved in the energy mess, whether we like it or not. Markets "work" based on institutions that are based on laws and social norms. They are social constructs whose operations can be altered.


The thing that I think tanks the concept lies in the poor rates of return throughout most of the past 20 years for the oil companies. The profit margins being just above bank rates has meant that research departments have been axed, hundreds of thousands of people who can find oil were thrown out of work and are now working in other industries. If the taxes take the oil companies back to that state of affairs, there won't be anyone to find you oil while you try to solve fusion.

dlw: I think that complicates things. It maybe implies the need for a reorganization of oil companies.

Like I said before, a substantial tax on oil will only reduce the price received by companies marginally due to their ability to pass it along due to inelastic demand. So the reduction in revenue will be some, but not that much. However, the higher prices shd result in an increase in the elasticity of demand and tend to reduce in more pressure for greater stability in oil prices.

If the private incentive to explore for oil is too weak under the new system, I see no reason it wouldn't be subsidized more. After all, the gov't would want more revenue from oil production.


The EU uses it for their social system, medicine etc rather than for finding new energy sources. I have lived and seen it in the UK.

You can have the last word on this. I am involved in a writing project and have another thread that might just take some time. Enjoyed it.

Well, I hope you and others can speak out and be heard by folks in the US and EU so that we all give more attention to this. I think that we could both procure funds for BIG research and stave off the more critical consequences of Peak Oil by having the US and other countries emulate EU's taxes on oil and take other measures to change our system, including possibly using the oil in the ANWR, but we shdn't simply use that oil to keep oil prices cheap. We need to think less of ourselves and more about the future generations on this most critical issue.

dlw

[YeshuaMarine]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists. I have been depressed. I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.

We are currently within a dollar of the all time high for oil prices, yet Saudi production is declining, Mexican production is declining, UK production is declining, Iran if declining slightly, Kuwait is going down, Indonesia production is dropping, Oman production is dropping.

Tonight, I ran across this tidbit:


http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=34507
OPEC's output is expected to fall by 200,000 barrels a day in
> July because of lower production from Saudi Arabia and
> Venezuela, a leading tanker tracker said Monday.
>
> The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is expected
> to pump 29.9 million b/d in July, down from 30.1 million b/d
> in June, Geneva-based Petrologistics forecasts.
>
> Preliminary estimates from Petrologistics suggest Saudi
> Arabia will pump 9 million b/d in July down from 9.15 million
> b/d in June.
>
> Output from OPEC's largest producer and hence de facto
> leader, has fallen in recent months to around 9.1 million b/d
> from a high of 9.5 million b/d.
>
> "Saudi Arabia is being very careful about the number of
> barrels it pushes out, as there isn't the demand for the
> heavier grades it produces," said Conrad Gerber, president of
> Petrologistics.
>
> Venezuela's output is expected to fall by 250,000 b/d to
> around 2.3 million b/d in July because of oil maintenance
> work, Gerber said.
>
> Iran's output is expected to be flat on the month at 3.9
> million b/d. The Islamic republic has started to find buyers
> for its heavier crude grades, Gerber said.
>
> In recent weeks Iran was storing up to 20 million barrels of
> unwanted crude oil on tankers.


I was warned privately by an engineer who had worked in Saudi Arabia several years ago that by the end of this decade Saudi production would collapse. with it now going down, the world will have huge problems in just a few years. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm

We have now passed the most significant time in human history. For the past million years, every day in the future humanity had more energy than they had yesterday. But from here on out, we will have less energy every day in the future.

This will have implications for crop yields (1% of the world's energy supply goes to making fertilizer; N. Korea is starving to death because they can't get fertilizer), interest in your bank account (how can banks make money when every day in the future the businesses they loan money to have less energy with which to ship their products to market?), the structure of American and European cities, the ability to travel the world, the ability to ship food to distant places.

God help us all. We are like the reindeer on St. Matthews Island off Norway.


An example featuring mammals is provided by the reindeer of St.
Matthew Island, in the Bering Sea (Klein, 1968). This island had
a mat of lichens more than four inches deep, but no reindeer
until 1944, when a herd of 29 was introduced. By 1957 the
population had increased to 1,350; and by 1963 it was 6,000. But
the lichens were gone, and the next winter the herd died off.
Come spring, only 41 females and one apparently dysfunctional
male were left alive (Figure 2)." "Energy and Human Evolution
by David Price
Please address correspondence to Dr. Price,
254 Carpenter Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853.
From Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies
Volume 16, Number 4, March 1995, pp. 301-19
1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

The modern agricultural system is a means to turn petroleum to food. Lichen was the food for reindeer; oil is food for us humans. We are in trouble.


I'm really not interested in your jive, and sorry if I'm disturbing a nice intellectual debate here. But I want to know if Mr. Glenn Morton has the nerve to actually participate in a debate on his "More and More....the Creationist Falsehood" article that I have seen to the point of ad nauseam on the internet against myself, Casey Powell a.k.a. YeshuaMarine. Give me an answer, unless yer yellow son!

:apnick: Christ fighters to the rescue!

[johnmartin]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists. I have been depressed. I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.


We are currently within a dollar of the all time high for oil prices, yet Saudi production is declining, Mexican production is declining, UK production is declining, Iran if declining slightly, Kuwait is going down, Indonesia production is dropping, Oman production is dropping.

Tonight, I ran across this tidbit:


http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=34507 (http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=34507)
OPEC's output is expected to fall by 200,000 barrels a day in
> July because of lower production from Saudi Arabia and
> Venezuela, a leading tanker tracker said Monday.
>
> The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is expected
> to pump 29.9 million b/d in July, down from 30.1 million b/d
> in June, Geneva-based Petrologistics forecasts.
>
> Preliminary estimates from Petrologistics suggest Saudi
> Arabia will pump 9 million b/d in July down from 9.15 million
> b/d in June.
>
> Output from OPEC's largest producer and hence de facto
> leader, has fallen in recent months to around 9.1 million b/d
> from a high of 9.5 million b/d.
>
> "Saudi Arabia is being very careful about the number of
> barrels it pushes out, as there isn't the demand for the
> heavier grades it produces," said Conrad Gerber, president of
> Petrologistics.
>
> Venezuela's output is expected to fall by 250,000 b/d to
> around 2.3 million b/d in July because of oil maintenance
> work, Gerber said.
>
> Iran's output is expected to be flat on the month at 3.9
> million b/d. The Islamic republic has started to find buyers
> for its heavier crude grades, Gerber said.
>
> In recent weeks Iran was storing up to 20 million barrels of
> unwanted crude oil on tankers.


I was warned privately by an engineer who had worked in Saudi Arabia several years ago that by the end of this decade Saudi production would collapse. with it now going down, the world will have huge problems in just a few years. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm)

We have now passed the most significant time in human history. For the past million years, every day in the future humanity had more energy than they had yesterday. But from here on out, we will have less energy every day in the future.

This will have implications for crop yields (1% of the world's energy supply goes to making fertilizer; N. Korea is starving to death because they can't get fertilizer), interest in your bank account (how can banks make money when every day in the future the businesses they loan money to have less energy with which to ship their products to market?), the structure of American and European cities, the ability to travel the world, the ability to ship food to distant places.

God help us all. We are like the reindeer on St. Matthews Island off Norway.


by David Price
Please address correspondence to Dr. Price,
254 Carpenter Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853.
From Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies
Volume 16, Number 4, March 1995, pp. 301-19
[SIZE=2]1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc. ]
An example featuring mammals is provided by the reindeer of St.
Matthew Island, in the Bering Sea (Klein, 1968). This island had
a mat of lichens more than four inches deep, but no reindeer
until 1944, when a herd of 29 was introduced. By 1957 the
population had increased to 1,350; and by 1963 it was 6,000. But
the lichens were gone, and the next winter the herd died off.
Come spring, only 41 females and one apparently dysfunctional
male were left alive (Figure 2)." "Energy and Human Evolution
by David Price
Please address correspondence to Dr. Price,
254 Carpenter Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853.
From Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies
Volume 16, Number 4, March 1995, pp. 301-19
1995 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

The modern agricultural system is a means to turn petroleum to food. Lichen was the food for reindeer; oil is food for us humans. We are in trouble.



Hi Glenn
I though I’d present an alternative to this thesis as presented by Robert Bennett here http://www.kolbecenter.org/ under the article entitled Evolutions well oiled propaganda. According to Russian research that has been well documented but almost never translated into English


The Russian abiotic theory is based on the following:

Russian science has shown that oil is created from inorganic compounds at extreme temperatures and pressures present only near the core of the Earth!
In fact, using the laws of modern thermodynamics, a mathematical model proved that oil can not form under the conditions dictated by the "fossil fuel" theory!
Petroleum -- the archetypal fossil fuel – did not form from the remains of dead animals and plants, but from minerals at extreme temperatures and pressures.
The research team mimicked conditions more than 100 kilometers below the earth’s surface by heating marble, iron oxide and water to around 1500° C at 50,000 times atmospheric pressure, producing methane, the main constituent of natural gas, and octane, the hydrocarbon molecule that makes petrol.

Apparently oil can be made from inorganic sources, but this inconvenient fact is ignored by the west. Basically if a oil field can be found over a fault line that can tap into a deep oil spring the oil supply will be almost endless.


Experiments have shown that a cocktail of alkanes, (methane, hexane, octane and so on) similar to that in natural oil, is produced when a mixture of calcium carbonate, water and iron oxide is heated to 1,500° C and crushed with the weight of 50,000 atmospheres. This experiment reproduces the conditions in the Earth’s upper mantle, 100 km below the surface, and so suggests that oil could be produced there from completely inorganic sources. This study is really just the tip of a very large iceberg of scientific research ignored in the West.

Further information regarding oil from inoraganic sources can be found here


1. The Exploration and Development of the Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern Flank of the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin.

V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 44-47.

2. Hydrocarbon Potential of the Crystalline Basement of the Dnieper-Donetsk Aulacogen (Ukraine).
I. I. Chebanenko, E. M. Dovskok, V. P. Klochko, A. V. Krayushkin, E. S. Dvoryanin, V. V. Krot, B. I. Malyuk, V. S. Tokovenko, (1995), Geological Journal, 4, 15-17.

3. Recent Applications of the Modern Theory of Abiotic Hydrocarbon Origins: The Drilling & Development of Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donets Basin.
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.

4. Principle Results of the Major Scientific Investigations for Hydrocarbons in the Swedish Deep Gas Exploration Project.
J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.

5. The Search for Mantle Markers: Examination of the Gravberg 1 "black gunk."
J. F. Kenney, (1990), Geologisches Jahrbuch Reihe D, Heft 107, (1999), 165-174.

6. Comment on "Mantle hydrocarbons: Abiotic or biotic?" by R. Sugisaki and K. Mimura.
J. F. Kenney, (1995), Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 59/18, 3857-3858.

7. Inorganic origin in upper mantle seen likely for solid hydrocarbons in Syria plateau basalt.
R. F. Mahfoud, J. M. Beck, (1991), Oil & Gas Journal, 89/43, 88-92.

8. Structural Features of the Earth's Crust and Petroleum Potential: First Results of CMP Deep Seismic Survey along the Geotraverse across the Volga-Ural Petroliferous Province.
V. A. Trofimov (2006), Doklady Earth Sciences, 411/8, 1178-1183.

See web site http://www.gasresources.net/ (http://www.gasresources.net/) for details of the above publications.

The oil shortage problem is based on the fallacy of “fossil fuels” whereby we are taught fuel comes from the remains of organic bodies over millions of years.

I think Glenn needs to see this and make comment as appropriate. I’m thinking this blows the lid on a cherished evolutionary tactic that uses a resource to promote a false theory, that has now been invalidated by this new information.

JM

[SteveF]

I'm thinking that JM has latched onto abiogenic oil formation because he believes he can somehow link it to evolution, naturalism, blah blah blah, and not because of any real consideration of the evidence. Indeed, as JM notes, much of the available evidence has not been translated into English and/or is in obscure, difficult to access journals. I therefore question his ability to bandy around words like "invalidated".

Furthermore, this debate has nothing to do with evolution or the age of the earth. It is about the mechanisms of oil and gas production and so statements about "cherished evolutionary tactics" being used to promote a "false theory" are nothing but vacuous hot air of the worst kind.

Anyway, I'm not a petroleum geologist or a chemist but it does strike me as a reasonably interesting debate. From my very quick reading of the issue, a number of questions raise themselves.

Firstly, we have the debate being framed in terms of conspiracy, which is often a tactic used by cranks (although the Russians seem to have a better case than most cranks). They have even provided a quote by Fred Hoyle, who seems to be an absolute requirement in these situations, despite the fact that his opinions on the matter are completely and utterly irrelevant.

However, what is the basis for this conspiracy to exist? Oil and gas prospection are driven by economics; if there is an alternative, more accurate theory that oil companies could use to make more cash, why are they not using it? Could it not simply be that they find it unconvincing?

Secondly, and following on from the above, are Russian exploration companies using this theory during their exploration? This is not made clear (although there is some small suggestion of usage in the references), but if Russian groups were widely using this altered framework and with some success, then this would be significant. Are Yukos using it, or gazprom? I'm not aware of these organisations actively adopting a different strategy from western organisations.

Thirdly, on a scientific front, I am not fully familiar with the issue (it's an area that Glenn is better qualified to assess) but at least one comment springs to mind. I'm not sure how well this theory addresses the presence of organic material in oil deposits. They spend a fair bit of tim on organic markers but only very briefly discuss the presence of pollen and dismiss it with a not particularly detailed reference to it being leached in. This does not seem to be an adequate treatment of the issue.

Fourthly, it is not accurate to say that western researchers have ignored their claims. Here is a paper on the subject and one that JM will not have read, despite thinking that this theory "blows the lid on a cherished evolutionary tactic that uses a resource to promote a false theory". This paper references much of what Kenney has written on the subject.


Glasby, G.P. (2006) Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: An historical overview. Resource Geology, 56, 83-96.

The two theories of abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and Thomas Gold's deep gas theory, have been considered in some detail. Whilst the Russian-Ukrainian theory was portrayed as being scientifically rigorous in contrast to the biogenic theory which was thought to be littered with invalid assumptions, this applies only to the formation of the higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle. In most other aspects, in particular the influence of the oxidation state of the mantle on the abundance of methane, this rigour is lacking especially when judged against modern criteria as opposed to the level of understanding in the 1950s to 1980s when this theory was at its peak. Thomas Gold's theory involves degassing of methane from the mantle and the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. However, formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as a result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds. This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.

[SteveF]

Found this interesting overview:

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

It is on the aapg (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) website, which rather suggests that the conspiracy theories are unfounded. Additional support for this comes from this:


On June 9-12, however, a Hedberg Conference will be held in London with the theme "Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production."

This directly contradicts Kenney, who said:


Why have there never been Russian or Ukrainian petroleum scientists invited to address a meeting of, e.g., the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (A.A.P.G.)

Also, the article confirms my speculation above:


However, even the Russian scientists he has worked with accept the organic origin of petroleum found in large, commercial accumulations.

"I've worked with geochemists and basin modelers at what was the Soviet Union's Institute for Foreign Geologic Studies. They were working with the same concepts we were," he said.

[shadowmaster]

sorry dude, I beg to differ.

dlw

Shadowmaster differs with your differment.

SM

[grmorton]

Hi Glenn
I though I’d present an alternative to this thesis as presented by Robert Bennett here http://www.kolbecenter.org/ under the article entitled Evolutions well oiled propaganda. According to Russian research that has been well documented but almost never translated into English [/quoe]

Sorry, but the AAPG Bulletin carried notices of such things as far back as the 70s . see V. B. Porfir'ev, "Inorganic Origin of Petroleum", Bulletin, AAPG, 58:1, January, 1974, p. 9

People know of this concept, they see no reason to go with it because the chemicals found in oil are clearly chemicals which have been split from living marine creatures. Secondly, long complex molecules, such as oil is, is incompatible with high temperature and one must provide a great explanation for how one takes methane and polyerises it. So far, I haven't seen one.





Apparently oil can be made from inorganic sources, but this inconvenient fact is ignored by the west. Basically if a oil field can be found over a fault line that can tap into a deep oil spring the oil supply will be almost endless.



This is utterly bunk. There are only a couple of fields in the world, EI 300 being one in which more oil has been pumped out of the field than could possibly have been held originally in it. What is believed to be happening here is that a much deeper field is leaking up the fault into the EI 330 reservoirs. Contrary to claims by nutcases who have never been involved in the oil business, this phenomenon is a very very rare event, but it is known that oil does migrate up faults from the source beds (highly organic rich shales) into the reservoirs. That part is not a problem. But when only the source rock (organic rich shale) is connected, the rate of migration is so slow that the field depletes before it can be refilled and then the oil field is abandoned.



Further information regarding oil from inoraganic sources can be found here



See web site http://www.gasresources.net/ (http://www.gasresources.net/) for details of the above publications.

This is laughable. From one of the english language publications we find this experiment supposedly proving the inorganic origin:

For experimental verification of the predictions
of the theoretical analysis, a special high-pressure apparatus has been
designed that permits investigations at pressures to 50 kbar and
temperatures to 1,500°C and also allows rapid cooling while maintaining
high pressures. The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons
has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron
oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with tripledistilled
water.

First off, besides the obvious ORGANIC input of CaCO3 and marble, both of which come from the remains of living creatrues, bacteria as well as clams, (so this isn't an inorganic recipe except in the most limited since). Secondly, deep in the earth, one simply can't engage in rapid cooling. It won't happen. So, these guys have a very nice, science fair experiment which has zero applicability to the real world situation.




The oil shortage problem is based on the fallacy of “fossil fuels” whereby we are taught fuel comes from the remains of organic bodies over millions of years.

I think Glenn needs to see this and make comment as appropriate. I’m thinking this blows the lid on a cherished evolutionary tactic that uses a resource to promote a false theory, that has now been invalidated by this new information.

JM


One thing is certain, oil floats upon water, which is why when oil leaves the source beds it moves UP through the geologic column. This point is important to bear in mind if one wishes to realistically explain the distribution of chemicals in the oil reservoirs.

There is a whole class of chemicals which appear in the organic rich source rocks as one moves up the geologic column. In the Cambrian there is no oleanane, no 24-norcholoestanes or vitrain, among many others. Why is there none of these chemicals in the cambrian-sourced/cambrian reservoired oils? Because angiosperms, diatoms and land plants had not yet been evolved. Those 3 groups produce those chemicals, but in the Cambrian they aren't there. But in the Devonian, land plants became abundant, and oils found in rocks above the Devonian have vitrain but don't have 24-norcholoestanes or oleanane. Then if one goes up vertically, one will find in Jurassic an younger rocks, the oils have both vitrain and 24-norcholoestane. Land plants continued to grow, but now diatoms evolved and they contributed their biomarker to the mix. Then, in the lat Cretaceous, angiosperms became numerous and Oleanane appears in oils vertically above the upper Cretaceous. Thus, this distribution can't be explained by the inorganic origin of oil theory. If these components of oil were being generated in the earth's mantle and then coming up, we should expect to see all of them in all oil fields. We don't.

I am always amused how people, like you, John, who never work in a disciplne and who never do the research to know enough about a field, somehow feel perfectly capable of pontificating on the mistakes of those who have spent a life time studing these areas.

[grmorton]

I'm thinking that JM has latched onto abiogenic oil formation because he believes he can somehow link it to evolution, naturalism, blah blah blah, and not because of any real consideration of the evidence. Indeed, as JM notes, much of the available evidence has not been translated into English and/or is in obscure, difficult to access journals. I therefore question his ability to bandy around words like "invalidated".

Furthermore, this debate has nothing to do with evolution or the age of the earth. It is about the mechanisms of oil and gas production and so statements about "cherished evolutionary tactics" being used to promote a "false theory" are nothing but vacuous hot air of the worst kind.

Anyway, I'm not a petroleum geologist or a chemist but it does strike me as a reasonably interesting debate. From my very quick reading of the issue, a number of questions raise themselves.

The Russians are scientists who disagree about some of the evidence, but having worked on 3 continents looking for oil, I simply see nothing that has caused me to regret my rejection of the abiogenic theory for petroleum generation. I absolutely believe in the abiogenic generation of natural gas--Jupiter proves it. If there were large fluxes of ultraviolet in the deep earth, I could accept some polymerization of methane, that happens in the upper atmospheres of Jupiter, titan and other planets out there. But, such a process gives a distribution of chemicals which is totally inconsistent with what we observe in oil.


Firstly, we have the debate being framed in terms of conspiracy, which is often a tactic used by cranks (although the Russians seem to have a better case than most cranks). They have even provided a quote by Fred Hoyle, who seems to be an absolute requirement in these situations, despite the fact that his opinions on the matter are completely and utterly irrelevant.

However, what is the basis for this conspiracy to exist? Oil and gas prospection are driven by economics; if there is an alternative, more accurate theory that oil companies could use to make more cash, why are they not using it? Could it not simply be that they find it unconvincing?

Here is the interesting thing. Even if it is abiogenic, it still will fill the geologic structures too slowly to be able to fuel the world. I have drilled through thousands of faults in the earth, and only in one area did I see any evidence of oil coming up faults (and in that case it was the fractured Austin Chalk and the fractures were the reservoir)


Thirdly, on a scientific front, I am not fully familiar with the issue (it's an area that Glenn is better qualified to assess) but at least one comment springs to mind. I'm not sure how well this theory addresses the presence of organic material in oil deposits. They spend a fair bit of tim on organic markers but only very briefly discuss the presence of pollen and dismiss it with a not particularly detailed reference to it being leached in. This does not seem to be an adequate treatment of the issue.


The biomarker data presents a big problem for abiogenesis. The usual response amounts to special pleading--the biomarkers are picked up as the oil migrates, but that is kind of a lame explanation.


For those who think Peak oil isn't going to byte us on the hinney, take a look at three things. 1. the production from 4 fields which used to produce 12% of the world's oil, Ghawar (6%), Cantarell (3%) Burgan (2%), and DaQing (1%). Ghawar, by admission of the Saudies is now declining at 8% per year and the Saudi's have reportedly acknowledged that their total production will now decline at 2%/ year. Cantarell decreased last year by 20%. Burgan used to produce 1.9 million bbl/day but today it is only producing 1.7 million. And when I first saw production data from Daqing, it was producing 1 million, today it is under 900,000 bbl/day. Oman's production is decreasing, the North Sea has been declining since 2000. Indeed the only regions increasing production are West Africa, Kazakhstan and Brazil and they are not enough to overcome the declines elsewhere.

How do I know this? Last year, 2006 was the first year that world oil production didn't climb significantly. It went up a mere 200,000 bbl/day over 2005 on an 85 million bbl/day world production. This inspite of lots and lots of activity.

The third thing to go look at is the spot price for oil over the past 5 years. It is high for a really good reason, there isn't enough to feed the demand.

[grmorton]

Found this interesting overview:

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

It is on the aapg (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) website, which rather suggests that the conspiracy theories are unfounded. Additional support for this comes from this:


I forgot about the Hedberg conference. I didn't get to go, but a former boss, a friend got to go and I told him I was jealous. I really did want to go.

[Ryokan]

I don't know. Since we first had this discussion I have become very sceptical of the peak oil phenomenon in general. Well, not the peak phenomenon, but rather the economic impacts. It could be bad, but it certainly will not be bad the way it was presented here.

[Dr.GH]

I don't know. Since we first had this discussion I have become very sceptical of the peak oil phenomenon in general. Well, not the peak phenomenon, but rather the economic impacts. It could be bad, but it certainly will not be bad the way it was presented here.

Well, when I view this in combination to ozone depletion, global warming and the soon to crash marine fisheries, I see this as far worse than anyone has presented on this thread.

I don't expect human civilization to persist. If humans survive, which I don't assume, there will be a recovery. What that recovery will look like will depend on the supression of religious fanatics. I don't think that will happen either.

There is an irony- there will still be many millions of brl.s of crude oil left in the ground. It will be too expensive to pump.

[Sheepdog]

meh. how many times was oil supposed to peak by now? 2006 went by, more or less the same as 2005, etc.

every prediction that fails is one more crack in the credibility of the peak oil movement.

gas prices are ambiguous evidence at best, since they are so heavily influenced by politics. pointing at declining oil fields looks a lot like card stacking, and one year of stagnant production does not a trend make. i'm not expert, but i always interpreted hubbert's curve as prediction of a trend.

btw, humans will survive, because we must. we are among the most adaptable species on the planet, and driven by an overwhelming will to survive. fear of death is exaggerated by the realization of what, exactly we fear.

[Jorge]

What that recovery will look like will depend on the supression of religious fanatics. I don't think that will happen either.
Think whatever you wish, DrGH, just as long as you remember to count Secular Humanists / Atheists amongst those "religious fanatics".

Jorge

[grmorton]

meh. how many times was oil supposed to peak by now? 2006 went by, more or less the same as 2005, etc.

every prediction that fails is one more crack in the credibility of the peak oil movement.

gas prices are ambiguous evidence at best, since they are so heavily influenced by politics. pointing at declining oil fields looks a lot like card stacking, and one year of stagnant production does not a trend make. i'm not expert, but i always interpreted hubbert's curve as prediction of a trend.

btw, humans will survive, because we must. we are among the most adaptable species on the planet, and driven by an overwhelming will to survive. fear of death is exaggerated by the realization of what, exactly we fear.

Skepticism is fine, except one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a finite resource. Eventually it will run out. When the productive capacity begins to decline we can all debate. But clearly I think it is sooner rather than later. Attached are two pictures. Tell me which country is about to peak oil production.

[johnmartin]

One thing is certain, oil floats upon water, which is why when oil leaves the source beds it moves UP through the geologic column. This point is important to bear in mind if one wishes to realistically explain the distribution of chemicals in the oil reservoirs.


There is a whole class of chemicals which appear in the organic rich source rocks as one moves up the geologic column. In the Cambrian there is no oleanane, no 24-norcholoestanes or vitrain, among many others. Why is there none of these chemicals in the cambrian-sourced/cambrian reservoired oils? Because angiosperms, diatoms and land plants had not yet been evolved. Those 3 groups produce those chemicals, but in the Cambrian they aren't there. But in the Devonian, land plants became abundant, and oils found in rocks above the Devonian have vitrain but don't have 24-norcholoestanes or oleanane. Then if one goes up vertically, one will find in Jurassic an younger rocks, the oils have both vitrain and 24-norcholoestane. Land plants continued to grow, but now diatoms evolved and they contributed their biomarker to the mix. Then, in the lat Cretaceous, angiosperms became numerous and Oleanane appears in oils vertically above the upper Cretaceous. Thus, this distribution can't be explained by the inorganic origin of oil theory. If these components of oil were being generated in the earth's mantle and then coming up, we should expect to see all of them in all oil fields. We don't.

I am always amused how people, like you, John, who never work in a disciplne and who never do the research to know enough about a field, somehow feel perfectly capable of pontificating on the mistakes of those who have spent a life time studing these areas.

According to Dr Bennett

As a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences the modern Russian theory differs fundamentally from the previous hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum The biological theory of oil production requires that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high free enthalpy and complexity (the constituents of crude oil) evolve spontaneously from highly oxidized biogenic molecules of low free enthalpy and complexity. Beginning in 1964, Soviet scientists carried out extensive theoretical statistical thermodynamic analysis that 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 the mantle of the Earth.
Evolution's Well-Oiled Propaganda, http://www.kolbecenter.org/ (http://www.kolbecenter.org/)

If Dr Bennett is correct, then you have fallen for the ‘what common, therefore caused’ fallacy that is common to the arguments of the evolutionists. These two articles discuss the thermo regarding oil formation from biological matter.

The Constraints of the Laws of Thermodynamics upon the Evolution of Hydrocarbons: The Prohibition of Hydrocarbon Genesis at Low Pressures. (http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm)
J. F. Kenney, I. K. Karpov, Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov, V. A. Krayushkin, I. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 18-23. PDF version (http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.pdf).

2.Dismissal of Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum. (http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm)
J. F. Kenney, Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov, V. A. Krayushkin, I. K. Karpov, V. G. Kutcherov, I. N. Plotnikova, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 26-34. PDF version (http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.pdf).

Also Guy Berthault has made some studies concerning strata found here
http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/ that contradicts or at least places the standard model in some doubt. Your understanding of oil and strata as you have posted above has been challenged as far as I can see.
JM

[johnmartin]

I'm thinking that JM has latched onto abiogenic oil formation because he believes he can somehow link it to evolution, naturalism, blah blah blah, and not because of any real consideration of the evidence. Indeed, as JM notes, much of the available evidence has not been translated into English and/or is in obscure, difficult to access journals. I therefore question his ability to bandy around words like "invalidated".
Furthermore, this debate has nothing to do with evolution or the age of the earth. It is about the mechanisms of oil and gas production and so statements about "cherished evolutionary tactics" being used to promote a "false theory" are nothing but vacuous hot air of the worst kind. Yet evolutionists use the oil formation issue in their world view, so if it shown that oil is not produced in the manner they say, then it is yet another step in the destruction of the false theory of materialist evolutionary theory.


Anyway, I'm not a petroleum geologist or a chemist but it does strike me as a reasonably interesting debate. From my very quick reading of the issue, a number of questions raise themselves. So your above statements have no evidence. We then should believe you because you are a materialist, atheistic evolutionist. Don’t think so.


Firstly, we have the debate being framed in terms of conspiracy, which is often a tactic used by cranks (although the Russians seem to have a better case than most cranks). They have even provided a quote by Fred Hoyle, who seems to be an absolute requirement in these situations, despite the fact that his opinions on the matter are completely and utterly irrelevant. Here we see the tactic of poisoning the well that is so often used by those who have no answer to a real problem that has been exposed by the Russian scientists.


However, what is the basis for this conspiracy to exist? Oil and gas prospection are driven by economics; if there is an alternative, more accurate theory that oil companies could use to make more cash, why are they not using it? Could it not simply be that they find it unconvincing? Could it be that the scarcity scare drives up oil prices? Its something similar to the control of diamonds that drives up the diamond price.
Oil from biological matter is discussed here
The Constraints of the Laws of Thermodynamics upon the Evolution of Hydrocarbons: The Prohibition of Hydrocarbon Genesis at Low Pressures. (http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm)
J. F. Kenney, I. K. Karpov, Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov, V. A. Krayushkin, I. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 18-23. PDF version (http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.pdf).

2.
Dismissal of Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum. (http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm)
J. F. Kenney, Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov, V. A. Krayushkin, I. K. Karpov, V. G. Kutcherov, I. N. Plotnikova, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 26-34. PDF version (http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.pdf).


Secondly, and following on from the above, are Russian exploration companies using this theory during their exploration? This is not made clear (although there is some small suggestion of usage in the references), but if Russian groups were widely using this altered framework and with some success, then this would be significant. Are Yukos using it, or gazprom? I'm not aware of these organisations actively adopting a different strategy from western organisations.

See the article
The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin
“In this article is described a project for exploration and production of petroleum in an area which had been previously condemned, according to the perspectives and reasoning of the old “biological-origin” hypothesis: the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. This specific project has been chosen because it is a "pure" modern project: the geological area explored is one which had been extensively studied in the past and had been previously condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production; the exploration techniques applied, from the initial work-up, through the well planning, to the production tests have been carried out in ways peculiar to such for abiogenic hydrocarbons in crystalline environments; and the scientific tests upon the petroleum produced were specifically designed to test the assumption that the oil and gas originated at great depth in the Earth.” http://www.gasresources.net/

The article discusses several results and concludes that
“These results, taken either individually or together, confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found both in the Precambrian crystalline basement and the sedimentary cover of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin.
The exploration drilling is still in progress and continues to yield success. As of this date (September 2001), there are more than 50 commercial commercially oil and gas fields in the 100km×600km strip of the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. One field produces gas from Jurassic age sandstones; thirty-two produce oil or gas from middle-lower Carboniferous age sandstones; fifteen produce from both Carboniferous age sandstones and lower crystalline basement rocks (amphibolites, crystalline schists, granites, gneisses, granodiorites); two fields produce oil and gas solely from the crystalline basement.” http://www.gasresources.net/

That’s a pretty good record from a previously thought of unproductive area. So yes the theory has been verified regardless of what other oil companies do or do not believe.


Thirdly, on a scientific front, I am not fully familiar with the issue (it's an area that Glenn is better qualified to assess) but at least one comment springs to mind. I'm not sure how well this theory addresses the presence of organic material in oil deposits. They spend a fair bit of time on organic markers but only very briefly discuss the presence of pollen and dismiss it with a not particularly detailed reference to it being leached in. This does not seem to be an adequate treatment of the issue. See the above articles that show oil from organic material is bogus.


Fourthly, it is not accurate to say that western researchers have ignored their claims. Here is a paper on the subject and one that JM will not have read, despite thinking that this theory "blows the lid on a cherished evolutionary tactic that uses a resource to promote a false theory". This paper references much of what Kenney has written on the subject.

Glasby, G.P. (2006) Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: An historical overview. Resource Geology, 56, 83-96.

The two theories of abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and Thomas Gold's deep gas theory, have been considered in some detail. Whilst the Russian-Ukrainian theory was portrayed as being scientifically rigorous in contrast to the biogenic theory which was thought to be littered with invalid assumptions, this applies only to the formation of the higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle. In most other aspects, in particular the influence of the oxidation state of the mantle on the abundance of methane, this rigour is lacking especially when judged against modern criteria as opposed to the level of understanding in the 1950s to 1980s when this theory was at its peak. Thomas Gold's theory involves degassing of methane from the mantle and the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. However, formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as a result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds. This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.

And yet the oil fields cites above were found using the theory. Could it be that western oil companies don’t want the abiogenic formation of oil to be well known? Most likely for economic reasons.


JM

[johnmartin]

Well, when I view this in combination to ozone depletion, global warming and the soon to crash marine fisheries, I see this as far worse than anyone has presented on this thread.




I don't expect human civilization to persist. If humans survive, which I don't assume, there will be a recovery. What that recovery will look like will depend on the supression of religious fanatics. I don't think that will happen either.Those fanatics include the cult follwers of evironmentalism, scientism, materialism, agnosticism (a religion of doubt), atheism and on and on.




There is an irony- there will still be many millions of brl.s of crude oil left in the ground. It will be too expensive to pump.Maybe the pressures would push it upwards and the problem would be to prevent it exiting the earth too fast. I'm only speculating here however.
JM

[SteveF]

Yet evolutionists use the oil formation issue in their world view, so if it shown that oil is not produced in the manner they say, then it is yet another step in the destruction of the false theory of materialist evolutionary theory.

Getting up in the morning and going for a pee is also part of my worldview.

Anyway, I find it ironic that JM is so against the biogenic theory because of it's atheist, materialism etc position and appears to be favouring the abiogenic theory which is, er, atheist and materialist etc etc. I think JM is a tiny bit confused.


So your above statements have no evidence. We then should believe you because you are a materialist, atheistic evolutionist. Don’t think so.

This is incoherent babble. Learn to construct sentences and improve your command of English. Still, despite this I think you are saying that despite my admitting to not being an expert, this invalidates what I previously wrote. Clearly it doesn't; you have not conducted a thorough evaluation of the evidence. You can not have done so.


Here we see the tactic of poisoning the well that is so often used by those who have no answer to a real problem that has been exposed by the Russian scientists.

Blah blah blah. These particular Russians have been engaged in conspiracy, they have produced a pointless Fred Hoyle quote and at least one of their statements has been shown to be false.


Could it be that the scarcity scare drives up oil prices? Its something similar to the control of diamonds that drives up the diamond price.

Finally, something vaguely sensible. This could indeed be an answer, is it reasonable though? I think not, in light of the evidence I have presented against conspiracy (invites to meetings, a paper dealing with Russian evidence). On the economic side of things, I still imagine it would ultimately be beneficial for exploration companies to find oil and gas.


Oil from biological matter is discussed here

Yes, I saw those. Congratulation's for pointing them out. Or should I say, congratulations for reading what Bennett writes and then forming opinions based on whatever your own personal oracle says. I'm starting to think you worship Bennett and not God.

Anyway, I already mentioned that from my brief scan, I wasn't convinced by their handwaving explanation of pollen presence, namely a quick, offhand mention of leaching. This brings up another amusing point. In other threads, particularly those on the cosmological front, JM wastes valuable minutes of people's lives pontificating about how scientists can know things, how they can actually demonstrate something etc.

If this this vague reference to leaching were in another context, supporting a theory that JM does not accept (or rather one that the lord Bennett has told him not to accept), he would be all over it like the proverbial rash. In this instance, he is perfectly happy to accept it. Ladies and gentleman, the JM brain filter in action once again.


That’s a pretty good record from a previously thought of unproductive area. So yes the theory has been verified regardless of what other oil companies do or do not believe.

Well done for pointing out something that I already acknowledged. You must be very proud. Anyway, this is a relatively small number of sites, particularly considering the long history of this theory. Moreover, as Glenn has noted, there are localities where abiogenic theory would predict oil yet none has been found.


And yet the oil fields cites above were found using the theory. Could it be that western oil companies don’t want the abiogenic formation of oil to be well known? Most likely for economic reasons.

This paper presents evidence against the abiogenic theory. You have not read it. How do you know that, for example, the sites discussed as successful examples of abiogenic prediction do not have an alternate explanation? How do you know that the paper does not elegantly refute the claims made by the Russian authors against biogenic theory?

The answer is that you don't know because you haven't conducted a reasonable review of the evidence. You have latched onto this theory because Bennett told you to do so (does he speak to you in your dreams) and you think that somehow you can shoehorn it into your usual blithering attacks on materialism and atheism. You are an incredibly, yet amusingly, arrogant individual.

Oh and by the way, the Glasby paper references successful prediction by abiogenic theory (the Krayushkin paper) as well as the claims made for and against the two competing hypotheses (particularly those by Kenney). Maybe this fact might pierce your arrogance and give you a clue that you don't have the knowledge base to be making the statements that you are.

[grmorton]

According to Dr Bennett

As a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences the modern Russian theory differs fundamentally from the previous hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum The biological theory of oil production requires that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high free enthalpy and complexity (the constituents of crude oil) evolve spontaneously from highly oxidized biogenic molecules of low free enthalpy and complexity. Beginning in 1964, Soviet scientists carried out extensive theoretical statistical thermodynamic analysis that 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 the mantle of the Earth.
Evolution's Well-Oiled Propaganda, http://www.kolbecenter.org/ (http://www.kolbecenter.org/)

Every hear of turkey gut oil? They take dead turkey parts, cook it and out comes oil which can be used to drive vehicles. This shows that the supposed inability to generate oil from organic material is bunko. Shoot, even go read the YEC literature and you will find them pointing to cases where oil is generated rapidly from organic material.

BTW, you didn't respond to my comment that marble and CaCO3 is from living creatures and that therefore, these guys aren't creating oil abiogenically. This is one of the most frustrating things is that when points are made, you either ignore them or don't have the background to even understand them.



Also Guy Berthault has made some studies concerning strata found here
http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/ that contradicts or at least places the standard model in some doubt. Your understanding of oil and strata as you have posted above has been challenged as far as I can see.
JM


Berthault merely illustrated the 16th century Walther's law, a law of sedimentation which was one of the earliest discovered, and then, he fools people ignorant of geology as if he has discovered something wonderful and countercultural. He hasn't and it isn't. Go look up Walther's law.

[grmorton]

Could it be that western oil companies don’t want the abiogenic formation of oil to be well known? Most likely for economic reasons.

Oh brother. Do you realize that the world has been pumping more oil out of the ground than we have been finding for the past 27 years? We make money finding oil, not with holding it. The western oil companies control only about 10% of the world's oil, the governmental oil companies control the rest. So, if the governments didn't want something known, then they wouldn't use it, but the investors want to get rich and the path to riches is via finding oil.

Not only do you not know geology, you don't even understand economics.

[johnmartin]

Originally posted by johnmartin
Yet evolutionists use the oil formation issue in their world view, so if it shown that oil is not produced in the manner they say, then it is yet another step in the destruction of the false theory of materialist evolutionary theory.
Getting up in the morning and going for a pee is also part of my worldview.
Anyway, I find it ironic that JM is so against the biogenic theory because of it's atheist, materialism etc position and appears to be favouring the abiogenic theory which is, er, atheist and materialist etc etc. I think JM is a tiny bit confused. Biogenic theory favors or at least requires long ages which are required by evolution. However non organic oil formation processes don’t seem to do this. The only confusion is your inability to understand this very simple idea.

Originally posted by johnmartin
So your above statements have no evidence. We then should believe you because you are a materialist, atheistic evolutionist. Don’t think so.
This is incoherent babble. Learn to construct sentences and improve your command of English. Still, despite this I think you are saying that despite my admitting to not being an expert, this invalidates what I previously wrote. Clearly it doesn't; you have not conducted a thorough evaluation of the evidence. You can not have done so. Neither have you by your own admission so you were founding an argument on ignorance.

Originally posted by johnmartin
Here we see the tactic of poisoning the well that is so often used by those who have no answer to a real problem that has been exposed by the Russian scientists.
Blah blah blah. These particular Russians have been engaged in conspiracy, they have produced a pointless Fred Hoyle quote and at least one of their statements has been shown to be false. Wow. Those oil wells are false as well.

Originally posted by johnmartin
Could it be that the scarcity scare drives up oil prices? Its something similar to the control of diamonds that drives up the diamond price.
Finally, something vaguely sensible. This could indeed be an answer, is it reasonable though? I think not, in light of the evidence I have presented against conspiracy (invites to meetings, a paper dealing with Russian evidence). On the economic side of things, I still imagine it would ultimately be beneficial for exploration companies to find oil and gas. Yet another none answer. Your argumentation has not improved.

Originally posted by johnmartin
Oil from biological matter is discussed here
Yes, I saw those. Congratulation's for pointing them out. Or should I say, congratulations for reading what Bennett writes and then forming opinions based on whatever your own personal oracle says. I'm starting to think you worship Bennett and not God. Think again. I did read the first article.

Anyway, I already mentioned that from my brief scan, I wasn't convinced by their handwaving explanation of pollen presence, namely a quick, offhand mention of leaching. This brings up another amusing point. In other threads, particularly those on the cosmological front, JM wastes valuable minutes of people's lives pontificating about how scientists can know things, how they can actually demonstrate something etc. And this is supposed to be an argument.

If this this vague reference to leaching were in another context, supporting a theory that JM does not accept (or rather one that the lord Bennett has told him not to accept), he would be all over it like the proverbial rash. In this instance, he is perfectly happy to accept it. Ladies and gentleman, the JM brain filter in action once again. Amazing leaps of logic.

Originally posted by johnmartin
That’s a pretty good record from a previously thought of unproductive area. So yes the theory has been verified regardless of what other oil companies do or do not believe.
Well done for pointing out something that I already acknowledged. You must be very proud. Anyway, this is a relatively small number of sites, particularly considering the long history of this theory. Moreover, as Glenn has noted, there are localities where abiogenic theory would predict oil yet none has been found. Good for Glen. I’m thinking the biogenic theory probably has the same problem.

Originally posted by johnmartin
And yet the oil fields cites above were found using the theory. Could it be that western oil companies don’t want the abiogenic formation of oil to be well known? Most likely for economic reasons.
This paper presents evidence against the abiogenic theory. You have not read it. How do you know that, for example, the sites discussed as successful examples of abiogenic prediction do not have an alternate explanation? How do you know that the paper does not elegantly refute the claims made by the Russian authors against biogenic theory? Do you know?

The answer is that you don't know because you haven't conducted a reasonable review of the evidence. You have latched onto this theory because Bennett told you to do so (does he speak to you in your dreams) and you think that somehow you can shoehorn it into your usual blithering attacks on materialism and atheism. You are an incredibly, yet amusingly, arrogant individual. Says the atheist who denies all the abundant evidence for design and causation to deny Gods existence.

Oh and by the way, the Glasby paper references successful prediction by abiogenic theory (the Krayushkin paper) as well as the claims made for and against the two competing hypotheses (particularly those by Kenney). Maybe this fact might pierce your arrogance and give you a clue that you don't have the knowledge base to be making the statements that you are. Maybe. Try seeing a bit of design and causation to undo that negative belief system you have that’s so destructive to mankind.
JM

[johnmartin]

Every hear of turkey gut oil? They take dead turkey parts, cook it and out comes oil which can be used to drive vehicles. This shows that the supposed inability to generate oil from organic material is bunko. Shoot, even go read the YEC literature and you will find them pointing to cases where oil is generated rapidly from organic material.Is it the same oil found in oil wells?


BTW, you didn't respond to my comment that marble and CaCO3 is from living creatures and that therefore, these guys aren't creating oil abiogenically. This is one of the most frustrating things is that when points are made, you either ignore them or don't have the background to even understand them.Join the club. I've made many arguments I know are true yet the atheists want to go out of their way to refute them. OK so I missed an argument. Does marble and CaCO3 come solely from living creatures?





Berthault merely illustrated the 16th century Walther's law, a law of sedimentation which was one of the earliest discovered, and then, he fools people ignorant of geology as if he has discovered something wonderful and countercultural. He hasn't and it isn't. Go look up Walther's law.So how does this effect the formation of the strata you mentioned?
JM

[johnmartin]

Oh brother. Do you realize that the world has been pumping more oil out of the ground than we have been finding for the past 27 years? Are there some oil wells that are different. Say ones over or near a fault line that has access to deeper sources of oil as propose by the non organic oil theory?


We make money finding oil, not with holding it. The western oil companies control only about 10% of the world's oil, the governmental oil companies control the rest. So, if the governments didn't want something known, then they wouldn't use it, but the investors want to get rich and the path to riches is via finding oil.

Not only do you not know geology, you don't even understand economics.Interesting argument. Yet those wells work anyway as previously cited. I find that interesting. Regarding economics,

What is the correct definition of wealth?
What is the fundamental economic act?
How is the notion of value determined?
JM

[SteveF]

Biogenic theory favors or at least requires long ages which are required by evolution. However non organic oil formation processes don’t seem to do this. The only confusion is your inability to understand this very simple idea.

Both are materialist, atheist, naturalistic theories.


Neither have you by your own admission so you were founding an argument on ignorance.

Evidently you need to improve your reading comprehension. Nowehere have I said which mechanism I favour, nowhere have I reached a conclusion. Throughout I have been frank about the bases for my reasoning (i.e. a relatively cursory review of the subject). You, on the other hand, have reached a conclusion despite similarly limited endeavour. This makes you intellectually dishonest.


Wow. Those oil wells are false as well.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.


Yet another none answer. Your argumentation has not improved.

Ironic in light of the above. Doubly ironic given that it was an answer and one that you have not, er, answered.


Think again. I did read the first article.

I never suggested otherwise. In addition to learning the basics of communication, I also suggest learning how to read properly.


And this is supposed to be an argument.

Yup.


Amazing leaps of logic.

Thanks.


Good for Glen. I’m thinking the biogenic theory probably has the same problem.

Great. So you admit that abiogenic theory isn't quite as watertight as you have been suggesting. Maybe you aren't completely beyond hope. Maybe.


Do you know?

Irrelevant. The point is that you do not know, but make grandiose claims nonetheless.


Says the atheist who denies all the abundant evidence for design and causation to deny Gods existence.

Irrelevant diversion. The point remains.


Maybe. Try seeing a bit of design and causation to undo that negative belief system you have that’s so destructive to mankind.

Stop worshing at the alter of your false God, Bennett.

[grmorton]

Is it the same oil found in oil wells?

Join the club. I've made many arguments I know are true yet the atheists want to go out of their way to refute them. OK so I missed an argument. Does marble and CaCO3 come solely from living creatures?


Most limestone comes from living creatures, we know this because of the textures we find microscopically in the limestone. Here is a picture of limestones, coquinas, made up of shells. Even micritic limestones, are from bacterial action in which the bacteria deposits the limestone.





So how does this effect the formation of the strata you mentioned?
JM

Walther's law just shows that multiple lithologies can be laid down simultaneously, but it doesn't require that they be deposited rapidly. Berthault, using a flume, with a high sediment load lays down sediments quickly, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality--just has to do with a lab experiment.

[grmorton]

Are there some oil wells that are different. Say ones over or near a fault line that has access to deeper sources of oil as propose by the non organic oil theory?

Your question shows that you didn't understand what I said. The WORLD has been pumping more oil out of the ground than we have been finding, and finding would include EI 330 field which is about the only place where a reservoir is being re-filled as quickly as it is pumped out. It is an ANOMALY--go look that word up.


Interesting argument. Yet those wells work anyway as previously cited. I find that interesting.

They are the anomaly, a one-off.


Regarding economics,

What is the correct definition of wealth?
What is the fundamental economic act?
How is the notion of value determined?
JM

Wealth is not money, it is choices in life. The wealthiest people get to make choices to do things other folk don't get to do. We are all wealthier than George Washington. We actually ahve the choice to fly to Paris for Lunch--he had no opportunity to make such a choice.

Fundamental economic act? Barter

Value is determined between a willing buyer and willing seller, unimpeded by outside interests, including the government. You should go to a Chinese market sometime to try to buy something. It is called kan jia (loosely translated bargaining). It is quite an experience which most Americans don't get to experience. The price of an object is set by the two hagglers, but if you are American rather than Chinese, they know you are rich and won't stand there arguing for an hour about the last 10 renminbi (about $1)

[shadowmaster]

Value is determined between a willing buyer and willing seller, unimpeded by outside interests, including the government. You should go to a Chinese market sometime to try to buy something. It is called kan jia (loosely translated bargaining). It is quite an experience which most Americans don't get to experience. The price of an object is set by the two hagglers, but if you are American rather than Chinese, they know you are rich and won't stand there arguing for an hour about the last 10 renminbi (about $1)

Shadowmaster has been to Juarez. That works also.:smile:

[johnmartin]

Most limestone comes from living creatures, we know this because of the textures we find microscopically in the limestone. Here is a picture of limestones, coquinas, made up of shells. Even micritic limestones, are from bacterial action in which the bacteria deposits the limestone. Ok thanks. What about the rest of it though? Does limestone have to come from anything? Couldn't there be limestone from the creation event that is now involved with oil formation?




Walther's law just shows that multiple lithologies can be laid down simultaneously, but it doesn't require that they be deposited rapidly. Berthault, using a flume, with a high sediment load lays down sediments quickly, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality--just has to do with a lab experiment. Why not then apply his findings to the field in accordance with Genesis flood and see if it explains what we see? I'm guessing you’ve covered this on another thread.



Glen, please accept my apologies if I seem arrogant or if I’ve offended you in any way. I do respect your opinion in your field of expertise and I do take on board what you say. I'm not a lost cause. Yet you like the rest of us also have weaknesses that can use the benefit of others to assist you.



I did find Bennett’s article a compelling read so I thought I'd post some of it here and see what reaction I'd get. I still think the non organic process is amazing. Maybe there is something there for the future.



I read your other post and thanks for the response.




Your question shows that you didn't understand what I said. The WORLD has been pumping more oil out of the ground than we have been finding, and finding would include EI 330 field which is about the only place where a reservoir is being re-filled as quickly as it is pumped out. It is an ANOMALY--go look that word up.



Maybe there is something to that well that’s special that Bennett has got correct.




Wealth is not money, it is choices in life. The wealthiest people get to make choices to do things other folk don't get to do. We are all wealthier than George Washington. We actually ahve the choice to fly to Paris for Lunch--he had no opportunity to make such a choice.




Fundamental economic act? Barter



Value is determined between a willing buyer and willing seller, unimpeded by outside interests, including the government. You should go to a Chinese market sometime to try to buy something. It is called kan jia (loosely translated bargaining). It is quite an experience which most Americans don't get to experience. The price of an object is set by the two hagglers, but if you are American rather than Chinese, they know you are rich and won't stand there arguing for an hour about the last 10 renminbi (about $1)



Good effort, but not quite correct. Maybe we could leave this for another day.



With respect.

JM

[Kulindrichnus]

Walther's law just shows that multiple lithologies can be laid down simultaneously, but it doesn't require that they be deposited rapidly.

Quick word about Walther's Law. Perhaps you are simplifying things for JM; but it doesn't date from the 16th Century, but from the late 19th. And it states that facies found in vertical succession were laid down in laterally adjacent migratory belts (unconformities/hiatuses etc excluded). It describes facies succession. However we now know it does not hold for facies associations (which would also be an example of multiple lithologies laid down simultaneously, but in this case not necessarily by the action of migratory belts).

Original reference for the German-reader is

WALTHER, J. (1894). Einleitung in die Geologie als Historische Wissenschaft, Bd. 3. Lithogenesis der Gegenwart, 535-1055. Fischer Verlag, Jena.

K

[grmorton]

Quick word about Walther's Law. Perhaps you are simplifying things for JM; but it doesn't date from the 16th Century, but from the late 19th. And it states that facies found in vertical succession were laid down in laterally adjacent migratory belts (unconformities/hiatuses etc excluded). It describes facies succession. However we now know it does not hold for facies associations (which would also be an example of multiple lithologies laid down simultaneously, but in this case not necessarily by the action of migratory belts).

Original reference for the German-reader is

WALTHER, J. (1894). Einleitung in die Geologie als Historische Wissenschaft, Bd. 3. Lithogenesis der Gegenwart, 535-1055. Fischer Verlag, Jena.

K

Oops. Thanks for the historical correction. Now, I have to go figure out why I thought it was that old.

And yes, I am simplifying a bit for JM. It is useful when talking to people outside the field.

[grmorton]

Ok thanks. What about the rest of it though? Does limestone have to come from anything? Couldn't there be limestone from the creation event that is now involved with oil formation?

The problem here is your methodology. You want a certain result and so you want to twist the observations to fit your desired outcome. One can do this, but one can't trust the outcome. Sure, you can declare that some limestone is from the creation. How do you know it is true? Did the Bible tell you that? No. Did the Pope declare it? No. It would merely be a case of making something up to support your pet theory.




Why not then apply his findings to the field in accordance with Genesis flood and see if it explains what we see? I'm guessing you’ve covered this on another thread.


Berthault's experiments don't fit any realistic scenario in the flood.



Glen, please accept my apologies if I seem arrogant or if I’ve offended you in any way. I do respect your opinion in your field of expertise and I do take on board what you say. I'm not a lost cause. Yet you like the rest of us also have weaknesses that can use the benefit of others to assist you.


Outsiders to a field can be correct, but that is only likely to happen when the person has done equivalent research to those working in the field. Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist was correct about continental drift. Initially his ideas were rejected, partly because he was an outsider, but, and this is a big but, he had actually done the research and the facts supported his case. Eventually geology accepted his ideas. But when someone who doesn't know where limestone comes from thinks he can come up with a better idea for oil formation than those who have spent their careers in the business, the hubris is interesting.

But it is upon this basis that most of young-earth creationism rests. A group of people who haven't the foggiest idea about science or scientific things, think they are more qualified to say what science is about than those doing it who have studied it for decades.



I did find Bennett’s article a compelling read so I thought I'd post some of it here and see what reaction I'd get. I still think the non organic process is amazing. Maybe there is something there for the future.

I glanced at Bennett's article. I am not a chemist but I looked up Chemical potential. It is always in relation to a mixture of chemicals, not an inherent thing, at least that is what it looked like to me. And if that is the case, there is not a single chemical potential number.

Secondly, he has carbohydrates with negative numbers and oil with positive numbers. I really don't understand that, maybe some chemist can explain it. But that would seem to me to imply that burning carbohydrates is somehow energetically the opposite of burning oil. If oil gives off energy, carbohydrates absorb energy when burned or vice versa. Which conclusion is contrary to all observation.





Maybe there is something to that well that’s special that Bennett has got correct.






Maybe, but I do know lots of geochemists and not one of them thinks petroleum comes from inorganic sources and they are aware of that idea.



Good effort, but not quite correct. Maybe we could leave this for another day.



Obviously you have some particular theoretical view in mind. If one views economics as an outgrowth of a thermodynamic system, then value would be based upon energy. Economists often miss that the ultimate limit to economics is energetic. One can never make a profit so long as one has to spend more energy to get oil out of the ground than one gets back from those extracted barrels. Same thing for coal, solar energy, ethanol etc. From physics, theoretically if I have to spend 1 of a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil out of the ground, the effort is futile, regardless of the price.

It used to be that there was a 100 to 1 energy return on energy invested in the oil industry. Today it is down to about 10 to 1 and for tar sands it is something (I didn't look this up) like 1.4 to 1. When it is 1:1, the game is over even if oil is a gazillion dollars per barrel.


As to economics and your questions. There actually are lots of ways to determine value, not just one. There is rate of return, there is NPV, there is ROCE, DROI, investment efficiency and any number of economic metrics. If you want to discuss economics, I am game but lets do it in another thread.

[johnmartin]

Originally posted by johnmartin (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1928935#post1928935)
Ok thanks. What about the rest of it though? Does limestone have to come from anything? Couldn't there be limestone from the creation event that is now involved with oil formation?

The problem here is your methodology. You want a certain result and so you want to twist the observations to fit your desired outcome. One can do this, but one can't trust the outcome. Ok but this is not the whole story, because I approach these issues with a rather large epistemological world view behind me. So I must take this into account when seeking an answer and also when seeking to ask the correct questions. As a Christian I will ask questions that say an atheist would not ask. I’m sure you can understand this.

Sure, you can declare that some limestone is from the creation. How do you know it is true? I don’t know. Could you present some evidence from your experience on this matter? I’m assuming you believe in the creation event even with a mythical or metaphorical interpretation of scripture.


Did the Bible tell you that? No. Did the Pope declare it? No. It would merely be a case of making something up to support your pet theory. Not really Glenn. You approach these issues with the Protestant epistemology behind you, and me a Catholic epistemology. The major difference in this regard is that the Protestant hermeneutic is that private interpretation of scripture as the basis for belief, whereas the Catholic submits to the teachings of the church fathers, tradition, scripture and the church magisterium, which are all hamonised.
The magisterium has stated that the Genesis account is literally true and that creation was directly from God to make all substances complete. The only creation that continues to occur from nothing is the creation of the soul of new humans during the generation process.
The question is Glenn, as God has created, then what should we expect to see in the geology from creation? I think that it is rather evident that the older geology will be deep within the earth and the further we go down, the more likely we are to come across the rocks that have existed since creation. If we then come across substances that have some elements in common with organic bodies, such as say CaCO3, then we can at least posit that this CaCO3 is from creation and not from another organic body. This would then match the non organic formation of oil theory for deep well sources.

Why not then apply his findings to the field in accordance with Genesis flood and see if it explains what we see? I'm guessing you’ve covered this on another thread.

Berthault's experiments don't fit any realistic scenario in the flood. How so?

Glen, please accept my apologies if I seem arrogant or if I’ve offended you in any way. I do respect your opinion in your field of expertise and I do take on board what you say. I'm not a lost cause. Yet you like the rest of us also have weaknesses that can use the benefit of others to assist you.

Outsiders to a field can be correct, but that is only likely to happen when the person has done equivalent research to those working in the field. Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist was correct about continental drift. Initially his ideas were rejected, partly because he was an outsider, but, and this is a big but, he had actually done the research and the facts supported his case. Eventually geology accepted his ideas. But when someone who doesn't know where limestone comes from thinks he can come up with a better idea for oil formation than those who have spent their careers in the business, the hubris is interesting. Ok but a simple explanation has been given above which seems reasonable.

But it is upon this basis that most of young-earth creationism rests. A group of people who haven't the foggiest idea about science or scientific things, think they are more qualified to say what science is about than those doing it who have studied it for decades. The way I see it is that most scientists who are YEC are protestants such as the AIG web site. They then have the same or very similar epistemology as you. So you see their position within the same box according the principle of private scriptural interpretation. Yet there are others who do not have this principle, use another epistemology, to come to the YEC position. Now when you say “haven't the foggiest idea about science” I assume you are limiting this to the empirical sciences, however those who come to a YEC creation position would say those who come to the OEC position do so with a false or at least deficient understanding of non empirical sciences, such as ecclesiology, philosophy, theology, Patristics, pneumatology and so on. To have a better understanding of these issues and come to the correct position we need to have these sciences under the belt as well.
For example on the geo thread I have posted that according to sacred science, there are facts about the universe that could not be known from the natural sciences, that have been revealed to man. These include the existence of the firmament, the stretching of the firmament, the change in structure of the firmament and its rotation after day 3. These truths are virtually unknown to many (99%) of cosmologists and must influence the conclusions they reach. Likewise the creation event has also revealed truths that the natural sciences cannot know as found in geology. An example may well be the difference between the creation rocks and the post creation rocks. This distinction would influence the conclusions in geology.

I did find Bennett’s article a compelling read so I thought I'd post some of it here and see what reaction I'd get. I still think the non organic process is amazing. Maybe there is something there for the future.

I glanced at Bennett's article. I am not a chemist but I looked up Chemical potential. It is always in relation to a mixture of chemicals, not an inherent thing, at least that is what it looked like to me. And if that is the case, there is not a single chemical potential number.

Secondly, he has carbohydrates with negative numbers and oil with positive numbers. I really don't understand that, maybe some chemist can explain it. But that would seem to me to imply that burning carbohydrates is somehow energetically the opposite of burning oil. If oil gives off energy, carbohydrates absorb energy when burned or vice versa. Which conclusion is contrary to all observation. OK




Maybe there is something to that well that’s special that Bennett has got correct.



Maybe, but I do know lots of geochemists and not one of them thinks petroleum comes from inorganic sources and they are aware of that idea. OK

Good effort, but not quite correct. Maybe we could leave this for another day.

Obviously you have some particular theoretical view in mind. If one views economics as an outgrowth of a thermodynamic system, then value would be based upon energy. Economists often miss that the ultimate limit to economics is energetic. One can never make a profit so long as one has to spend more energy to get oil out of the ground than one gets back from those extracted barrels. Same thing for coal, solar energy, ethanol etc. From physics, theoretically if I have to spend 1 of a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil out of the ground, the effort is futile, regardless of the price.

It used to be that there was a 100 to 1 energy return on energy invested in the oil industry. Today it is down to about 10 to 1 and for tar sands it is something (I didn't look this up) like 1.4 to 1. When it is 1:1, the game is over even if oil is a gazillion dollars per barrel.


As to economics and your questions. There actually are lots of ways to determine value, not just one. There is rate of return, there is NPV, there is ROCE, DROI, investment efficiency and any number of economic metrics. If you want to discuss economics, I am game but lets do it in another thread. Ok. The measure of value is not the same as what value is although the two are obviously related.
JM

[grmorton]

Ok but this is not the whole story, because I approach these issues with a rather large epistemological world view behind me.

Read that as 'prejudice' 'bias', or 'ax-to-grind'



So I must take this into account when seeking an answer and also when seeking to ask the correct questions. As a Christian I will ask questions that say an atheist would not ask. I’m sure you can understand this.

No, you are asking questions that are ill-informed. Don't conflate such questions as being due to Christianity.



I don’t know. Could you present some evidence from your experience on this matter? I’m assuming you believe in the creation event even with a mythical or metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

Actually I believe in a quite historical creation with a very literal view of scripture. I don't go down the merry path of "it-must-all-be-metaphorical-because-it-is-factually-false' path so many of my fellow TEs do. I think the Bible teaches evolution. I think one can see in Gen 1 the expansion of space, nowhere does it say that animals give rise to animals according to their kind. YECism is based upon a total misreading of scripture.

I did present some experience. That core photo I posted is of a core I personally held in my hand. It belonged to a colleague who let me scan it. If you look you can see the dead crinoids which compose the entire rock. attached below are other pictures of biogenic limestone I have. All of these photos can be seen on my web pages



Not really Glenn. You approach these issues with the Protestant epistemology behind you, and me a Catholic epistemology.

I am sorry, but this is simply ridiculous. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. There is no Catholic epistemology or Protestant Epistemology any more than there is a Japanese, Chinese, or British Epistemology. Knowledge is a unity, not a diversity. We are all humans with the same sensory perceptual apparati which all work approximately the same and logic is the same logic regardless of national or religious origins. Such a silly view means that it is ok for me to believe whatever and you to believe whatever and the two whatevers are not the same.



The major difference in this regard is that the Protestant hermeneutic is that private interpretation of scripture as the basis for belief, whereas the Catholic submits to the teachings of the church fathers, tradition, scripture and the church magisterium, which are all hamonised.

For pete's sake, John, we are NOT talking about Scripture here but the ORIGIN OF OIL! What Church tradition is there on the origin of OIL??? What pope spoke to the biogeochemistry of petroleum? Just because you approach the Scripture in a certain way doesn't mean that you get to say the sun is purple with pink polkadots.

These ideas of yours are simply looney and would be even to Thomas Aquinas.



The magisterium has stated that the Genesis account is literally true and that creation was directly from God to make all substances complete. The only creation that continues to occur from nothing is the creation of the soul of new humans during the generation process.

You can't draw from this the claim that Coca-Cola was created on the day of creation. Chemical reactions continue even today. Oil generation continues today as well.


The question is Glenn, as God has created, then what should we expect to see in the geology from creation? I think that it is rather evident that the older geology will be deep within the earth and the further we go down, the more likely we are to come across the rocks that have existed since creation. If we then come across substances that have some elements in common with organic bodies, such as say CaCO3, then we can at least posit that this CaCO3 is from creation and not from another organic body. This would then match the non organic formation of oil theory for deep well sources.

There are few rocks which have remained unchanged and undifferentiated from the origin of the earth. Gravity, temperature and convection cells mix the material in the earth and cause them to separate--this is true even today. So, it is hard to say what the original rocks are or were.




How so?

Berthault's experiments happen in a confined space. Sedimentation in the Flood must have taken place in an unconfined space where water is evenly spread over the entire earth. Berthault has a pump which pumps the water around. If the world were covered by waters only for one year, there would be little in the way of coherent currents. Why? Because the currents we see today are due to temperature and salinity differences and these currents take hundreds of thousands of years to complete the cirucuit in the oceans. Such currents could not set up and move the vast quantities of water and sediment in merely a year.

Think of it this way. After you fill the bath tub for your bath tonight, do you see a circular current in the tub that maintains itself and speeds up enough to carry sand? No, there is no hydrostatic head in the bathtub. This would be the problem for a short duration filling of the earth with water. Even if you had a salty body of water at the ocean's surface and it wanted to drop down to the ocean floor, when it did, it wouldn't pull the entire Gulf Stream the volume vacated by the falling body of water would merely be replaced by some water rising locally. And without such currents, you can't have flood sedimentation and with out such currents, Berthault's experiments are irrelevant.



Ok but a simple explanation has been given above which seems reasonable.

Seems reasonable to someone who has avoided any and all study of the area. I haven't studied brain surgery so it very well might seem reasonable to me to stick a screw driver in someone's brain to cure their insomnia. But that wouldn't be a reasonable explanation to someone who has studied the area (nor to someone who actually has ethics).




The way I see it is that most scientists who are YEC are protestants such as the AIG web site. They then have the same or very similar epistemology as you. So you see their position within the same box according the principle of private scriptural interpretation. Yet there are others who do not have this principle, use another epistemology, to come to the YEC position. Now when you say “haven't the foggiest idea about science” I assume you are limiting this to the empirical sciences, however those who come to a YEC creation position would say those who come to the OEC position do so with a false or at least deficient understanding of non empirical sciences, such as ecclesiology, philosophy, theology, Patristics, pneumatology and so on. To have a better understanding of these issues and come to the correct position we need to have these sciences under the belt as well.

What does this have to do with the origin of OIL???????? Can you possibly show a linkage of pneumatology and sedimentology? This is so weird and self-delusional of you to think that ecclesiology is going to impact biology. Name one single connection between the two topics other than that Bishops, like other biological entities pee.

Science is to explain relationships between observations. The interesting thing in all this is that I am currently reading some of Alfred North Whiteheads work Science and the Modern World He points out that in some sense the rise of modern science was a reaction against the deductive rationalism of the Middle ages--the kind of thinking you are so fond of. The Medievalists beleived that they could assume certain things and then deduce all knowledge. You seem to think that. But as Godel showed, all knowledge can't be deduced even in formal systems, and secondly science didn't arise during the time period that this Medieval-style thinking arose. INdeed, this kind of thinking stifled science. Here is an interesting passage from Whitehead:

“Galileo keeps harping on how things happen, whereas his adversaries had a complete theory as to why things happen. Unfortunately the two theories did not bring out the same results. Galileo insists upon 'irreducible and stubborn facts,' and Simplicius, his opponent, brings forward reasons, completely satisfactory, at least to himself. It is a great mistake to conceive this historical revolt as an appeal to reason. On the contrary, it was through and through an anti-intellectualist movement. It was the return to the contemplation of brute fact; and it was based on a recoil from the inflexible rationality of medieval thought. In making this statement I am merely summarising what at the time the adherents of the old regime themselves asserted. For example, in the fourth book of Father Paul Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent, you will find that in the year 1551 the Papal Legates who presided over the Council ordered: 'That the Divines ought to confirm their opinions with the holy Scripture, Traditions of the Apostles, sacred and approved Councils, and by the Constitutions and Authorities of the holy Fathers; that they ought to use brevity, and avoid superfluous and unprofitable questions, and perverse contentions. . . . This order did not please the Italian Divines; who said it was a novity, and a condemning of School-Divinity, which, in all difficulties, useth reason, and because it was not lawful to treat as St. Thomas [Aquinas], St. Bonaventure, and other famous men did.'”

“It is impossible not to feel sympathy with these Italian divines, maintaining the lost cause of unbridled rationalism. They were deserted on all hands. The Protestants were in full revolt against them. The Papacy failed to support them, and the Bishops of the Council could not even understand them. For a few sentences below the foregoing quotation, we read: ‘Though many complained here-of [i.e., of the Decree] yet it prevailed but little, because generally the Fathers [i.e., the Bishops] desired to hear men speak with intelligible terms, not abstrusely, as in the matter of Justification, and others already handled.’”




For example on the geo thread I have posted that according to sacred science, there are facts about the universe that could not be known from the natural sciences, that have been revealed to man. These include the existence of the firmament, the stretching of the firmament, the change in structure of the firmament and its rotation after day 3. These truths are virtually unknown to many (99%) of cosmologists and must influence the conclusions they reach. Likewise the creation event has also revealed truths that the natural sciences cannot know as found in geology. An example may well be the difference between the creation rocks and the post creation rocks. This distinction would influence the conclusions in geology.
OK

Praytell, exactly what passage speaks of the original rocks?



OK
Ok. The measure of value is not the same as what value is although the two are obviously related.
JM[/quote]

This actually gets to a difference between the medievalist's thinking and that of the scientist, you, of course, being the medievalist.

speaking of Bacon, Whitehead notes:

classify when they should have said measure.

Science IS measurement; Metaphysics is more classificatory.

Now, unless you can show direct connections between metaphysical belief and how oil is formed, I am going to finish wasting my time with you.

[grmorton]

The edit period expired before I saw the mis-formatting. The last statement should be


This actually gets to a difference between the medievalist's thinking and that of the scientist, you, of course, being the medievalist.

speaking of Bacon, Whitehead notes:

Perhaps he was misled by the current logical doctrines which had come down from Aristotle. For, in effect, these doctrines said to the physicist classify when they should have said measure.

[johnmartin]

Originally posted by johnmartin
Ok but this is not the whole story, because I approach these issues with a rather large epistemological world view behind me.


Read that as 'prejudice' 'bias', or 'ax-to-grind' This is what makes me think that some of what you say below may well be a misrepresentation of reality, simply because you have misrepresented me with your statement above after I have made it very clear why our epistemological world views are so different.


I don’t know. Could you present some evidence from your experience on this matter? I’m assuming you believe in the creation event even with a mythical or metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

Actually I believe in a quite historical creation with a very literal view of scripture. I don't go down the merry path of "it-must-all-be-metaphorical-because-it-is-factually-false' path so many of my fellow TEs do. I think the Bible teaches evolution. I think one can see in Gen 1 the expansion of space, nowhere does it say that animals give rise to animals according to their kind. YECism is based upon a total misreading of scripture. Simply not established Glen. Which yet again shows just how large the gulf is between our presuppositions.

I did present some experience. That core photo I posted is of a core I personally held in my hand. It belonged to a colleague who let me scan it. If you look you can see the dead crinoids which compose the entire rock. attached below are other pictures of biogenic limestone I have. All of these photos can be seen on my web pages Ok

Not really Glenn. You approach these issues with the Protestant epistemology behind you, and me a Catholic epistemology.


I am sorry, but this is simply ridiculous. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. There is no Catholic epistemology or Protestant Epistemology any more than there is a Japanese, Chinese, or British Epistemology. Knowledge is a unity, not a diversity. We are all humans with the same sensory perceptual apparatus which all work approximately the same and logic is the same logic regardless of national or religious origins. Such a silly view means that it is ok for me to believe whatever and you to believe whatever and the two whatevers are not the same. Its not ridiculous and your comments above are out of context with what I say below and your reply below. You are being inconsistent to make me look silly. Not good man.

The major difference in this regard is that the Protestant hermeneutic is that private interpretation of scripture as the basis for belief, whereas the Catholic submits to the teachings of the church fathers, tradition, scripture and the church magisterium, which are all hamonised.

For pete's sake, John, we are NOT talking about Scripture here but the ORIGIN OF OIL! What Church tradition is there on the origin of OIL??? What pope spoke to the biogeochemistry of petroleum? Just because you approach the Scripture in a certain way doesn't mean that you get to say the sun is purple with pink polkadots.

These ideas of yours are simply looney and would be even to Thomas Aquinas. You fail to see the point yet again Glenn. I was talking about our different epistemologies which are very real and do place biases into our interpretations of what we see. A literal understanding of Genesis as a creation week and a young earth may impact on oil production especially if there is a theory that says millions of years are required to make oil.
Your reference to looney shows yet again that you fail to see this simple point I was trying to communicate below. So yet again your comment is in no way in context with my argument. Not good Glen.

The magisterium has stated that the Genesis account is literally true and that creation was directly from God to make all substances complete. The only creation that continues to occur from nothing is the creation of the soul of new humans during the generation process.

You can't draw from this the claim that Coca-Cola was created on the day of creation. Chemical reactions continue even today. Oil generation continues today as well. All the chemical matter for all things was created in the creation week.


The question is Glenn, as God has created, then what should we expect to see in the geology from creation? I think that it is rather evident that the older geology will be deep within the earth and the further we go down, the more likely we are to come across the rocks that have existed since creation. If we then come across substances that have some elements in common with organic bodies, such as say CaCO3, then we can at least posit that this CaCO3 is from creation and not from another organic body. This would then match the non organic formation of oil theory for deep well sources.


There are few rocks which have remained unchanged and undifferentiated from the origin of the earth. Gravity, temperature and convection cells mix the material in the earth and cause them to separate--this is true even today. So, it is hard to say what the original rocks are or were. So it is then difficult to say that limestone must have come from an organic substance, or at least you cannot exclude the possibility that limestone was created at least in some instances, or for that matter anything in the rocks . . . No?





How so?


Berthault's experiments happen in a confined space. Sedimentation in the Flood must have taken place in an unconfined space where water is evenly spread over the entire earth. Berthault has a pump which pumps the water around. If the world were covered by waters only for one year, there would be little in the way of coherent currents. Why? Because the currents we see today are due to temperature and salinity differences and these currents take hundreds of thousands of years to complete the circuit in the oceans. Such currents could not set up and move the vast quantities of water and sediment in merely a year.

Think of it this way. After you fill the bath tub for your bath tonight, do you see a circular current in the tub that maintains itself and speeds up enough to carry sand? No, there is no hydrostatic head in the bathtub. This would be the problem for a short duration filling of the earth with water. Even if you had a salty body of water at the ocean's surface and it wanted to drop down to the ocean floor, when it did, it wouldn't pull the entire Gulf Stream the volume vacated by the falling body of water would merely be replaced by some water rising locally. And without such currents, you can't have flood sedimentation and with out such currents, Berthault's experiments are irrelevant. Those currents would have been present in the first few days depending on what the source of the flood was. If it was from below the earth then there would have been currents. If it was from above, there also would have been currents. I fail to see how your argument is compelling when you seem to ignore this. There is also the possibility of floods before and after the flood event that have contributed to the geology.

Ok but a simple explanation has been given above which seems reasonable.

Seems reasonable to someone who has avoided any and all study of the area. I haven't studied brain surgery so it very well might seem reasonable to me to stick a screw driver in someone's brain to cure their insomnia. But that wouldn't be a reasonable explanation to someone who has studied the area (nor to someone who actually has ethics). It still seems reasonable and your response is typically inappropriate.


The way I see it is that most scientists who are YEC are protestants such as the AIG web site. They then have the same or very similar epistemology as you. So you see their position within the same box according the principle of private scriptural interpretation. Yet there are others who do not have this principle, use another epistemology, to come to the YEC position. Now when you say “haven't the foggiest idea about science” I assume you are limiting this to the empirical sciences, however those who come to a YEC creation position would say those who come to the OEC position do so with a false or at least deficient understanding of non empirical sciences, such as ecclesiology, philosophy, theology, Patristics, pneumatology and so on. To have a better understanding of these issues and come to the correct position we need to have these sciences under the belt as well.

What does this have to do with the origin of OIL???????? Can you possibly show a linkage of pneumatology and sedimentology? This is so weird and self-delusional of you to think that ecclesiology is going to impact biology. Name one single connection between the two topics other than that Bishops, like other biological entities pee. That’s easy Glen. Spirits act on bodies every day. This is well known from scripture in the OT accounts and the famous NT accounts such as the release of Peter from jail, Josephs dreams and on and on it goes. Both God and angels act on matter all the time.


Science is to explain relationships between observations. The interesting thing in all this is that I am currently reading some of Alfred North Whiteheads work Science and the Modern World He points out that in some sense the rise of modern science was a reaction against the deductive rationalism of the Middle ages--the kind of thinking you are so fond of. The Medievalists believed that they could assume certain things and then deduce all knowledge. You seem to think that. Well I simply don’t think that. I suspect that the author you refer to falls for the fallacy of mixing sciences. The scholastics were about philosophy and theology which proceeds by the deductive method in the main. They were also familiar about the inductive method that has been around since the Greeks such as Aristotle taught it in logic. The empirical sciences were in their infancy at those times, yet the methods were well known. It is also a well known fallacy that many modern writers fall into called the fallacy of chronology whereby the moderns project back into another time to judge that time by our own measure. Its simply false to do this and it simply false to place me or scholasticism in this false box.

But as Godel showed, all knowledge can't be deduced even in formal systems, and secondly science didn't arise during the time period that this Medieval-style thinking arose. INdeed, this kind of thinking stifled science. Here is an interesting passage from Whitehead:

Alfred North Whitehead, “The Origins of Modern Science,” in William Barrett and Henry D. Aiken, editors, Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, vol. 2 (New York: Random House, 1962), p. 828
“Galileo keeps harping on how things happen, whereas his adversaries had a complete theory as to why things happen. Galileo was not a good man and books have been written to debunk his role in science. He simply stole work from other scientists of the same time period and was also a geocentrist. Galileo the myth is simply not Galileo the historical man.


Unfortunately the two theories did not bring out the same results. Galileo insists upon 'irreducible and stubborn facts,' and Simplicius, his opponent, brings forward reasons, completely satisfactory, at least to himself. It is a great mistake to conceive this historical revolt as an appeal to reason. And those facts have no doubt been given different interpretations throughout history or have been overturned. Facts can be very shaky.


On the contrary, it was through and through an anti-intellectualist movement. What movement was anti intellectualist? If he is referring to scholasticism then he is Bsing here.


It was the return to the contemplation of brute fact; and it was based on a recoil from the inflexible rationality of medieval thought. In making this statement I am merely summarising what at the time the adherents of the old regime themselves asserted. He is quoting the Protestants who had formalised many diverse systems of scriptural interpretation and theologies that didn’t agree with each other, or the infant empirical sciences that were given support from scholasticism.


For example, in the fourth book of Father Paul Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent, you will find that in the year 1551 the Papal Legates who presided over the Council ordered: 'That the Divines ought to confirm their opinions with the holy Scripture, Traditions of the Apostles, sacred and approved Councils, and by the Constitutions and Authorities of the holy Fathers; This method is throughout church history and applies to the deposit of faith. This method is still used in the RCC church and has a status of infallibility due to several statements made regarding Papal, scriptural and Patristic infallibility. These truths are meant to be an aid to science and not a hindrance.


that they ought to use brevity, and avoid superfluous and unprofitable questions, and perverse contentions. . . . This order did not please the Italian Divines; who said it was a novity, and a condemning of School-Divinity, which, in all difficulties, useth reason, and because it was not lawful to treat as St. Thomas [Aquinas], St. Bonaventure, and other famous men did.'” Correct. There are many contentions made by men of ignorance of the correct method to be used or men of bad will. To avoid such contentions would promote true science, whereas unprofitable contentions would hinder true science. The problem with this author, as with many modern authors, is that he fails to make any real distinction regarding the different sciences, methods used and the authorities involved. This is typically done either out of ignorance or to use as a rhetorical device to dupe the ignorant into believing a false history. It is simple false or at least very biased history.


“It is impossible not to feel sympathy with these Italian divines, maintaining the lost cause of unbridled rationalism. He doesn’t define what this is and yet there seems to be a major problem if the terms are taken in the context f the thought he is critiquing. According to scholasticism truths have been revealed that go beyond reason. However the rationalists deny this. To then infer scholasticism is unbridled rationalism is self contradictory.


They were deserted on all hands. The Protestants were in full revolt against them. Protestants revolted for many and varied reasons. The revolt of Luther was very different to that of Henry VIII and different again to Calvin.


The Papacy failed to support them, and the Bishops of the Council could not even understand them. For a few sentences below the foregoing quotation, we read: ‘Though many complained here-of [i.e., of the Decree] yet it prevailed but little, because generally the Fathers [i.e., the Bishops] desired to hear men speak with intelligible terms, not abstrusely, as in the matter of Justification, and others already handled.’” I don’t know who “them” are other than to speculate it was the undefined unbridled rationalists, that has been shown to be self contradictory. Modern historians are generally at a loss the evaluate medieval history simply because they do not have the catholic or in this post Christian world, even a Christian mind. For a true account of medieval history consult the multi volume series by Warren Carroll or the many writings of Christopher Dawson and Hillarie Belloc who are far more faithful to nt only fact, but also reasons behind the movements.


For example on the geo thread I have posted that according to sacred science, there are facts about the universe that could not be known from the natural sciences, that have been revealed to man. These include the existence of the firmament, the stretching of the firmament, the change in structure of the firmament and its rotation after day 3. These truths are virtually unknown to many (99%) of cosmologists and must influence the conclusions they reach. Likewise the creation event has also revealed truths that the natural sciences cannot know as found in geology. An example may well be the difference between the creation rocks and the post creation rocks. This distinction would influence the conclusions in geology.

OK
Praytell, exactly what passage speaks of the original rocks? The earth was created including the rocks.


OK

Ok. The measure of value is not the same as what value is although the two are obviously related.
JM
This actually gets to a difference between the medievalist's thinking and that of the scientist, you, of course, being the medievalist. And of course don’t know what you are talking about from the quote you presented above that has many problems.



speaking of Bacon, Whitehead notes:

Alfred North Whitehead, “The Century of Genius,” in William Barrett and Henry D. Aiken, editors, Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, vol. 2 (New York: Random House, 1962), p. 828Perhaps he was misled by the current logical doctrines which had come down from Aristotle. For, in effect, these doctrines said to the physicist [i classify when they should have said measure.

© source where applicable This quote is quite possibly the most meaningless quote I’ve seen on Tweb.



Science IS measurement; Metaphysics is more classificatory. The former statement is myopic and the later is outright false.


Now, unless you can show direct connections between metaphysical belief and how oil is formed, I am going to finish wasting my time with you. Creation rocks have elements in them from creation week which can be used to make oil from non organic processes.
JM

[johnmartin]

The edit period expired before I saw the mis-formatting. The last statement should be


This actually gets to a difference between the medievalist's thinking and that of the scientist, you, of course, being the medievalist.

speaking of Bacon, Whitehead notes:

Perhaps he was misled by the current logical doctrines which had come down from Aristotle. For, in effect, these doctrines said to the physicist classify when they should have said measure. Perhaps this is a BS quote.
JM

[grmorton]

Perhaps this is a BS quote.
JM

Well anyone can go look it up, but that would entail some research, wouldn't it?

[grmorton]

This is what makes me think that some of what you say below may well be a misrepresentation of reality, simply because you have misrepresented me with your statement above after I have made it very clear why our epistemological world views are so different.

For a second time, epistemology does not determine how oil is formed. Period!



Its not ridiculous and your comments above are out of context with what I say below and your reply below. You are being inconsistent to make me look silly. Not good man.

Please explain how I am being inconsistent? I don't see it. My assumptions may not be your assumptions, but I am not inconsistent with my assumptions, only with yours.





You fail to see the point yet again Glenn. I was talking about our different epistemologies which are very real and do place biases into our interpretations of what we see. A literal understanding of Genesis as a creation week and a young earth may impact on oil production especially if there is a theory that says millions of years are required to make oil.

First off, a deduction, like the above, is only true if the assumptions going into the syllogism is true. the earth is not young, observation tells us that. Every single piece of geological information points to an earth considerably older than 6000 years. So, it doesn't matter to oil formation that your epistemology requires you to believe something that is not true. Radioactivity shows the earth is old; starlight travel times show that the universe is billions of years old; genetics says that humanity is old; cooling times of batholiths say that the earth is older than 6000 years. So, if you have an epistemology that requires you to believe something so falsified by the observational data, that is your problem. Please to push it onto others.




Your reference to looney shows yet again that you fail to see this simple point I was trying to communicate below. So yet again your comment is in no way in context with my argument. Not good Glen.

yeah, I have this intransigence of believing that truth should be absolute. You, on the other hand, believe that truth is relative. You are a post-modernist who believes that your assumptions should make the world out to be as you want it to be.



All the chemical matter for all things was created in the creation week.

Only if you interpret the Bible in a specific way--a way that makes the Bible false.



So it is then difficult to say that limestone must have come from an organic substance, or at least you cannot exclude the possibility that limestone was created at least in some instances, or for that matter anything in the rocks . . . No?

Can one form CaCO3 from chemicals? Of course, but one can't make shells that way, only living creatures can do that. Most limestones contain shells and shell fragments.





Those currents would have been present in the first few days depending on what the source of the flood was. If it was from below the earth then there would have been currents. If it was from above, there also would have been currents. I fail to see how your argument is compelling when you seem to ignore this. There is also the possibility of floods before and after the flood event that have contributed to the geology.

Is this true just because you say so? The Bible doesn't say anything about currents in the flood, so you must be the one making this up.



It still seems reasonable and your response is typically inappropriate.

It is very appropriate to note that you are pontificating upon areas you haven't even studied. How many geology books have you read? What are some of them? How many field trips have you goin on? To where?



That’s easy Glen. Spirits act on bodies every day. This is well known from scripture in the OT accounts and the famous NT accounts such as the release of Peter from jail, Josephs dreams and on and on it goes. Both God and angels act on matter all the time.

OK, so if a Chines said that a gui zi created oil, you would think that is ok? What if an Irish wiccan said that a beinn sithe produced oil and he was certain of it. Would that be ok too? I don't see in the Bible that God tells us that angels manufacture oil, so I would say you are making this stuff up as you go along and you are claiming knowledge of things you can't possibly have knowledge of.



Well I simply don’t think that. I suspect that the author you refer to falls for the fallacy of mixing sciences. The scholastics were about philosophy and theology which proceeds by the deductive method in the main. They were also familiar about the inductive method that has been around since the Greeks such as Aristotle taught it in logic. The empirical sciences were in their infancy at those times, yet the methods were well known. It is also a well known fallacy that many modern writers fall into called the fallacy of chronology whereby the moderns project back into another time to judge that time by our own measure. Its simply false to do this and it simply false to place me or scholasticism in this false box.


It is not inappropriate if you behave as described, in a totally deductive way, which is what you are doing. You are assuming that angels make oil (an activity for angels nowhere in Scripture) and then you are deducing that oil is a recent phenomenon. That is scholastic deductive reasoning.

The rest of the mumbling is not worth responding to. You run around making up things as you go. YOu claim angels or the spirit make oil. Is this from the Church Fathers? Where?

[Fedmahn Kassad]

People may or may not have noticed that I have been a wee bit absent from the creation/evolution lists. I have been depressed. I have come to believe that the earth has now peaked out in oil production and that makes this trivial debate rather meaningless.

We are currently within a dollar of the all time high for oil prices, yet Saudi production is declining, Mexican production is declining, UK production is declining, Iran if declining slightly, Kuwait is going down, Indonesia production is dropping, Oman production is dropping.

Hi Glenn,

Did you see my recent exchange with the API that I have written up for The Oil Drum?

Energy and the Environment with the API (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2478)

There is just a vast gulf here that is hard for me to comprehend.

Cheers,

FK/RR

[grmorton]

Hi Glenn,

Did you see my recent exchange with the API that I have written up for The Oil Drum?

Energy and the Environment with the API (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2478)

There is just a vast gulf here that is hard for me to comprehend.

Cheers,

FK/RR

Robert, I just read it. I had missed it as the last 2 weeks have been very busy with me getting laid off (something I wanted so I could then take retirement and the package) I understand what you are talking about, the gulf that is hard to comprehend. I think there are some politics going on here. Exxon is trying hard to get into Saudi Arabia. The Sauds are saying there is no problem. There is no benefit to Exxon to contradict the Sauds, so they don't. I have been in meetings where one Exxon VP actually laughed and said they didn't want to contradict the Saudis on Peak oil, and there were Saudi's in the room. The API gets its money from membership fees and I suspect that big companies give lots,

The thing people don't sometimes understand is that the world works off of money. When young people in the business world complain that they don't understand upper level management, I ask them what they would be willing to do for $3 million per year? The answer is usually "Almost anything", to which I reply, "That is all you need to know about upper management!"

I have also watched people with whom I shared the peak oil theories lose those peak oil ideas as they rose to the stratosphere of the company. One could assume that they know more than I, which might be the case or it could be that they see no benefit to the shareholders to tell them that oil is about to run out. Why I don't know. I am heavily invested in oil because I believe it is running out. I have put my money where my mouth is, to the point that my investment advisor is nervous. I am not because I believe that oil is going to continue an upward path because I see no new BIG supplies coming online. And a look at oil stocks over the past 3 years validates my investment strategy.

Cavaney mentioned the Jack discovery, "The Chevron Devon discovery". The permeability of that is poor and the press got it all wrong thinking that a multibillion barrel field was found. It wasn't. Cavaney ought to know better than this. The press report talked about the trend POSSIBLY could recover that much oil. My friends in the industry knowledgeable about Jack, tell me that they still aren't sure it is economic. I don't care how much oil one finds, if it isn't economic, it isn't going to come to market.

I also find it hard to believe the claim that some fields had gone up 300-400%. That is only possible if it was originally producing next to nothing, so such numbers are not impressive. A field producing 100 bbl per day is up 400 % if you get it up to 400 bbl/day, but that won't fuel the world. If Ghawar went up 400% all us oilies would be out of a job

I am always perplexed by the ability of people to ignore facts and the logical deductions from them. I beleive the facts I see which is why I am invested in oil and making a good return. To believe the other side would imply that there is plenty of oil to satisfy the demand and prices should drop, so their belief should result in falling prices, not rising prices. Fact is, the price of oil has gone up because there is insufficient amount to satisfy all the potential demand. The fact is Ghawar, Burgan, Cantarell, Daqing are all in decline and they produce about 10% of the world's oil. If that isn't a coming problem, I don't know what is.

[aniso]

So it is then difficult to say that limestone must have come from an organic substance,
Not difficult at all. I do it all the time.


...or at least you cannot exclude the possibility that limestone was created at least in some instances,
There is no evidence for that. However, there is ample evidence that virtually all limestones are biogenic. The exceptions are well-known as chemical precipitates that occurred in water and are therefore post-creation.


...or for that matter anything in the rocks . . . No?
Actually, I can. Unless you have some evidence, I shall in the future also.


Creation rocks have elements in them from creation week which can be used to make oil from non organic processes.
There are no 'creation rocks' recognized in geology. There are very old rocks and younger rocks. There are virtualy no limestones in the oldest rocks. Sure, the calcium has been around for a long time, maybe since the beginning, but there is a big difference between calcium silicates and calcium carbonate. And sure, the carbon may have been here for a very long time, but its form has changed so often, and it has been isotopically partitioned so that we can tell, virtually ALL limestones have been biogenically deposited sometime after 'creation'. Having calcium, carbon and oxygen floating around at the beginning does not mean that they were in limestone.

[grmorton]

Robert, one more thing. Did you see that Kashagan is going to be delayed for a year?

For those who might not know, Kashagan is the biggest discovery in about 20 years, but it is only 13 billion bbls or so, about what Prudhoe is.

[johnmartin]

Well anyone can go look it up, but that would entail some research, wouldn't it?Hey man you made the quote, its up to you to present the details. Those two sentences could mean just about anything. If you want to post this level of tripe then there is nothing to research.
JM

[grmorton]

Hey man you made the quote, its up to you to present the details. Those two sentences could mean just about anything. If you want to post this level of tripe then there is nothing to research.
JM

Sorry JM, this is stupid. I posted the quotation. You are the one who is asserting that the quotation is BS. When I said anyone could look it up, it means that if you are asserting that it is a false quotation, then it is up to you do look it up. All I will do is post the quotation again.

[johnmartin]

Sorry JM, this is stupid. I posted the quotation. You are the one who is asserting that the quotation is BS. When I said anyone could look it up, it means that if you are asserting that it is a false quotation, then it is up to you do look it up. All I will do is post the quotation again.Some context would be good. Without it it is almost meaningless. Present the context and I'll comment.
JM

[johnmartin]

For a second time, epistemology does not determine how oil is formed. Period! And you are a spin doctor.












Please explain how I am being inconsistent? I don't see it. My assumptions may not be your assumptions, but I am not inconsistent with my assumptions, only with yours.



Your a spin doctor Glen. When you dont like a statement or you cannot answer a statement, you spin it with an out of context answer. Its childish and boring.










First off, a deduction, like the above, is only true if the assumptions going into the syllogism is true. the earth is not young, observation tells us that. Every single piece of geological information points to an earth considerably older than 6000 years. So, it doesn't matter to oil formation that your epistemology requires you to believe something that is not true. Radioactivity shows the earth is old; starlight travel times show that the universe is billions of years old; genetics says that humanity is old; cooling times of batholiths say that the earth is older than 6000 years. So, if you have an epistemology that requires you to believe something so falsified by the observational data, that is your problem. Please to push it onto others.



My assumption is not what you think. You continue in your own epistemological world and ignore mine.








yeah, I have this intransigence of believing that truth should be absolute. You, on the other hand, believe that truth is relative. You are a post-modernist who believes that your assumptions should make the world out to be as you want it to be.



Spin doctor






Only if you interpret the Bible in a specific way--a way that makes the Bible false.



Ok Glen show me anywhere in the bible a text that says its permitted to interprete the bible according to a private interpretation. This is what you do and its explicitly forbidden in the OT and NT.






Can one form CaCO3 from chemicals? Of course, but one can't make shells that way, only living creatures can do that. Most limestones contain shells and shell fragments.

Only?




Is this true just because you say so? The Bible doesn't say anything about currents in the flood, so you must be the one making this up.Then its the only flood in history without a current. Now you are believing something without evidence to back you argument.








It is very appropriate to note that you are pontificating upon areas you haven't even studied. How many geology books have you read?Not many. I've read enough aboout rhetoric, logic, philosophy and theology to know when you are spinning something.




What are some of them? How many field trips have you goin on? To where?



Not many during undergraduate studies. They tended to give the same spin about old ages and slow processes which I found to be rather convenient explanations. As far as can tell, the older something is the more unlikely we are to know what really happened according to the inductive method. I find it all very naturalistic and depgrading to God who always acts in accordnace with his nature and creation would have been done with His ultimate end of man in mind, which is to reach heavenly glory with him forever. This is done through the covenants He made in the OT and NT. His creation act was then a covenantal act and hence the number seven is used, which means from hebrew to swear and oath. As theology is the highest science, the lower sciences must account for Gods perfections, which seems to be a non consideration for science when discussing ages. This also includes discussions on evolution, which seem to be devoid of consideration of these realities.






OK, so if a Chines said that a gui zi created oil, you would think that is ok? What if an Irish wiccan said that a beinn sithe produced oil and he was certain of it. Would that be ok too? I don't see in the Bible that God tells us that angels manufacture oil, so I would say you are making this stuff up as you go along and you are claiming knowledge of things you can't possibly have knowledge of.



Guess what your doing again Glenn? . . . your spinning it again aren't you. Your answer is as usual not taking the context of my previous posts into account.






It is not inappropriate if you behave as described, in a totally deductive way, which is what you are doing. You are assuming that angels make oil (an activity for angels nowhere in Scripture) and then you are deducing that oil is a recent phenomenon. That is scholastic deductive reasoning.

Never said this directly, although there is nothing you can say against it as angels have been revealed to act on matter in the OT and NT. Check the book of revelation where angels administer Gods decrees through acts of nature. Natures do not act from matter alone, but from substances without matter. The mind of matter is pure materialist myth.




The rest of the mumbling is not worth responding to. You run around making up things as you go. YOu claim angels or the spirit make oil. Is this from the Church Fathers? Where?Scripture says angels act on both men and nature in general. This includes the manipulation of matter by spirits to form anything they are capable of making. From memory angels control nations, planets motions and stars etc. This is beyond the natural sciences but is part of the Judeo/Christian tradition which we must believe. Do I have any specific evidence that angels have made oil? No. Do I have evidence that angels can manipulate matter? Yes. Do angels control matter? Yes. We cannot exclude the possibility that angels have acted on geological phenomena. This issue is only one of several that are routinely ignored or not known to exist because most Christians have become secularised. The Christian world view is very different to the world of the empiricist/materialist world view.

JM

[Mark Little]

:popcorn:This thread is another fascinating object lesson for those that want to include the supernatural in science.

[johnmartin]

:popcorn:This thread is another fascinating object lesson for those that want to include the supernatural in science.So Mark, tell me what the supernatual is. I dont think Glenn knows what the supernatural is either.
JM

[Mark Little]

So Mark, tell me what the supernatual is. I dont think Glenn knows what the supernatural is either.My point exactly. Thanks.

[gallileo]

ROTFLMAO.

When they admit that angels made the oil..it boggles the mind.

Did the angels also make the other geological resources ? Coal, iron, uranium ?


HAHAHAHAHAHA.

[gallileo]

Glen,

3 questions for you.

1. What do you think the depletion rates will be in the near future ?
2. Do you have an opinion on the ceilng and / or range of oil prices in that time frame ?
3. Do the major oil cos. have a clue yet ..(I would think they must) and are their PR output to date esp Exxon Mobil based on keeping share value from plummetting or just business as usual ?

Thanks -

[Fedmahn Kassad]

Robert, one more thing. Did you see that Kashagan is going to be delayed for a year?

For those who might not know, Kashagan is the biggest discovery in about 20 years, but it is only 13 billion bbls or so, about what Prudhoe is.

I did not see that.

I am still not convinced about Saudi. I know they have been declining, but they have shown the capacity for withholding production in the past. My prediction is that we will see their production go up by summer. If it doesn't, then I will concede that at least at present they are unable to increase capacity.

[grmorton]

Some context would be good. Without it it is almost meaningless. Present the context and I'll comment.
JM

After rushing out of here for a job interview, and then having a flat, calling AAA and them never showing up in an hour and a half, and then having dinner with my son for his birthday, I am finally able to answer this--not a good afternoon (the interview was fine, but the flat and lack of tool to get to the studs was bad).

here is the quote anbout why Bacon missed science rise of modern science
:


“The third point to notice about this quotation from Bacon is the purely qualitative character of the statements made in it. In this respect' Bacon completely missed the tonality which lay behind the sources of seventeenth century science. Science was becoming, and has remained, primarily quantitative. Search for measurable elements among your phenomena, and then search for relations between these measures of physical quantities. Bacon ignores this rule of science. For example, in the quotation given he speaks of action at a distance; but he is thinking qualitatively and not quantitatively. We cannot ask that he should anticipate his younger contemporary Galileo, or his distant successor Newton. But he gives no hint that there should be a search for quantities. Perhaps he was misled by the current logical doctrines which had COn;1.e down from Aristotle. For, in effect, these doctrines said to the physicist classify when they should have said measure.”

there, I have done your research for you.

“By the end of the century physics had been founded on a satisfactory basis of measurement. The final and adequate exposition was given by Newton. The common measurable element of mass was discerned as characterising all bodies in different amounts.”

[grmorton]

And you are a spin doctor.

Your a spin doctor Glen. When you dont like a statement or you cannot answer a statement, you spin it with an out of context answer. Its childish and boring.

My assumption is not what you think. You continue in your own epistemological world and ignore mine.

Spin doctor

Ok Glen show me anywhere in the bible a text that says its permitted to interprete the bible according to a private interpretation. This is what you do and its explicitly forbidden in the OT and NT.

Only?

Then its the only flood in history without a current. Now you are believing something without evidence to back you argument.

Not many. I've read enough aboout rhetoric, logic, philosophy and theology to know when you are spinning something.



Not many during undergraduate studies. They tended to give the same spin about old ages and slow processes which I found to be rather convenient explanations. As far as can tell, the older something is the more unlikely we are to know what really happened according to the inductive method. I find it all very naturalistic and depgrading to God who always acts in accordnace with his nature and creation would have been done with His ultimate end of man in mind, which is to reach heavenly glory with him forever. This is done through the covenants He made in the OT and NT. His creation act was then a covenantal act and hence the number seven is used, which means from hebrew to swear and oath. As theology is the highest science, the lower sciences must account for Gods perfections, which seems to be a non consideration for science when discussing ages. This also includes discussions on evolution, which seem to be devoid of consideration of these realities.





Guess what your doing again Glenn? . . . your spinning it again aren't you. Your answer is as usual not taking the context of my previous posts into account.



Never said this directly, although there is nothing you can say against it as angels have been revealed to act on matter in the OT and NT. Check the book of revelation where angels administer Gods decrees through acts of nature. Natures do not act from matter alone, but from substances without matter. The mind of matter is pure materialist myth.



Scripture says angels act on both men and nature in general. This includes the manipulation of matter by spirits to form anything they are capable of making. From memory angels control nations, planets motions and stars etc. This is beyond the natural sciences but is part of the Judeo/Christian tradition which we must believe. Do I have any specific evidence that angels have made oil? No. Do I have evidence that angels can manipulate matter? Yes. Do angels control matter? Yes. We cannot exclude the possibility that angels have acted on geological phenomena. This issue is only one of several that are routinely ignored or not known to exist because most Christians have become secularised. The Christian world view is very different to the world of the empiricist/materialist world view.

JM

John, this thread is about peak oil and issues related to that. If you wish to start a thread on how ecclesiology generates oil, be my guest but this is enough of the pseudo-babble on this thread. Stick to the topic or stop posting. As I said, you can start another thread if you beleive that presuppositions will allow oil to be generated in a nano-second.

[johnmartin]

My point exactly. Thanks.
A point I'm trying to make which Glenn wants to ignore is that spirits do act on matter. This is well established in scripture. We know for a fact that God, who is a spirit, did create and does sustain all matter. We also know God uses other spirits to use matter in a way to bring about his will. Christian scientists seem to ignore this important point.
JM

[grmorton]

A point I'm trying to make which Glenn wants to ignore is that spirits do act on matter. This is well established in scripture. We know for a fact that God, who is a spirit, did create and does sustain all matter. We also know God uses other spirits to use matter in a way to bring about his will. Christian scientists seem to ignore this important point.
JM

While we might agree that God, a spirit, created the universe, I don't see a stitch of evidence that angels make oil. And I can't figure out why making oil is so essential to his will, which seems more concentrated on our morality and behavior than what we drive or how warm we are in the winter.

If you want this discussed, please start a new thread on how spirits make oil. I know that barley makes spirits, but that is a differnt thing.

[Mark Little]

A point I'm trying to make which Glenn wants to ignore is that spirits do act on matter. This is well established in scripture. We know for a fact that God, who is a spirit, did create and does sustain all matter. We also know God uses other spirits to use matter in a way to bring about his will. Christian scientists seem to ignore this important point.Again, you continue demonstrate why religion should not be mixed with science. The debate between you and Glen will never get past the scriptures and on to oil.

As I said for all those who want the supernatural included in science, ponder this exchange and think whether this thread is demonstrating a productive outcome. If this is what happens when Christians discuss these issues between themselves, what will happen when Hindus, Mulsims, Jews and Buddists all want to inject their spiritual believes into science.

Returning you to the advertised program.

[Roy]

After rushing out of here for a job interview, ...

So much for retirement. :smile:

Roy

[grmorton]

So much for retirement. :smile:

Roy

Yeah, everyone keeps calling wanting me to go to work.

[grmorton]

Again, you continue demonstrate why religion should not be mixed with science. The debate between you and Glen will never get past the scriptures and on to oil.

As I said for all those who want the supernatural included in science, ponder this exchange and think whether this thread is demonstrating a productive outcome. If this is what happens when Christians discuss these issues between themselves, what will happen when Hindus, Mulsims, Jews and Buddists all want to inject their spiritual believes into science.

Returning you to the advertised program.

Mark, have you ever seen arguments between physicists about the nature of the multiverse? or the nature of the undetectable gravitons? or whether or not magnetic monopoles exist? or what happens at the singularity of a black hole? How are those arguments to be decided? Certainly not via observation.

All human intellectual endeavors have a set of unancerable, unobservable issues.

[Mark Little]

Mark, have you ever seen arguments between physicists about the nature of the multiverse? or the nature of the undetectable gravitons? or whether or not magnetic monopoles exist? or what happens at the singularity of a black hole? How are those arguments to be decided? Certainly not via observation.Well, not a great deal, but the bits I have seen the scientists used mathematics as the basis for the case that they were arguing. And while they thought their ideas had the most merit, I don't think I've seen any who thought they had "The Truth". I saw that below!

I must admit, I have mainly dealt with scientists in the radio field, and while I have seen some good arguments, I can't say I could equate any of them to the discussion below.

I did, however, once have to teach some rather uninspiring low ranking soldiers about HF radio propagation. They wanted me to include Allah in the explanation of how radio waves refrated through the Ionosphere. I think I put the discussion below with the latter group, rather than the former.

That you seem to comparing the discussion below on a par with a discussion between scientists about the Nature of the Multiverse and the Nature of Singularities is rather an eye-opener, no two ways about it.

[grmorton]

Well, not a great deal, but the bits I have seen the scientists used mathematics as the basis for the case that they were arguing. And while they thought their ideas had the most merit, I don't think I've seen any who thought they had "The Truth". I saw that below!

I must admit, I have mainly dealt with scientists in the radio field, and while I have seen some good arguments, I can't say I could equate any of them to the discussion below.

Oh, you ought to see geologists going at it about what the depositional system is deep down, or where an unconformity is on the well logs. Many of issues can never be solved even with a well because the well is only a 6" diameter hole and one can always argue that what is seen is anomalous. There was once an argument between my partner, a geologist an another geologist about whether a particular well had a fault or not. The other guy was saying that the sand had pinched out, my partner argued, and the prospect needed, a fault. We drilled a well, got the sand we expected with our model, but in actuality, one could argue that the sand still pinched out at a more rapid rate than anyone expected, so, even our empirical data and a successful prediction didn't rule out an alternative theory. It merely changed the grounds over which the argument continued.

Geoscience is like that.


I did, however, once have to teach some rather uninspiring low ranking soldiers about HF radio propagation. They wanted me to include Allah in the explanation of how radio waves refrated through the Ionosphere. I think I put the discussion below with the latter group, rather than the former.

The entire problem that reductionists have is that they by fiat, rule out miracles. Theists don't but will argue over whether something is or isn't miraculous. What the soldiers above and JM were arguing is not, in my mind, miraculous. It is an add-on belief. Conceptually it is possible that God moves radio quanta around, but it is more reasonable to have natural laws do it.

But, one thing we don't know, in reality is the nature of natural law. All natural laws are observations of how nature works, not why the law is as it is. Why does a moving magnetic field induce an electric current. We know HOW it happens, meaning we can describe it, and can give a recipe for it, but does a description constitute understanding the phenomenon, or is it more akin to naming the parts of the phenomenon? I really think it is the latter.

An example. Maxwell's equations include two types of phenomenon, advanced and retarded waves. Only retarded solutions to Maxwell's equations are observed--that is, solutions in which causes preced effects. Advanced solutions, where effects precede causes, are never observed. Why? Why does the math only work in the forward time direction and not the reverse? The same differential equations give rise to both solutions, which are related to each other differing only in a negative in one place in the wave's equation.

Probably by the time you get to the equations in radio work,even the knowledge of the advanced waves is long forgotten because it is irrelevant to do what you want to do. Do they, like dark matter exist?




That you seem to comparing the discussion below on a par with a discussion between scientists about the Nature of the Multiverse and the Nature of Singularities is rather an eye-opener, no two ways about it.


Why should it be an eyeopener? Do you have one shred of observational evidence for the existence of gazillions of causally disjoint universes? Do you have one sighting of the graviton. You atheists love to play the game of God as the invisible pink unicorn, not realizing that you have as many invisible pink unicorns on the reductionist side of the table as we do. We speak of angels, reductionistic physics speaks of axions, magnetic monopoles and other unseen particles. What is the difference.

And to show you that I am not the only one who would compare such a discussion with physicists, Here is what Lee Smolin said in a recent book, talking about the rationality of a bunch of YECs he met on an airplane looking for dinosaurs in Africa. It is fascinating.

“Of course, we do have to exercise caution. Not all evidence said to support a view is solidly based. Sometimes the claims invented to support a theory in trouble are just rationalizations. I recently met a lively group of people standing in the aisle on a flight from London to Toronto. They said hello and asked me where I was com¬ing from, and when I told them I was returning from a cosmology conference, they immediately asked my view on evolution. ‘Oh no,’ I thought, then proceeded to tell them that natural selection had been proved true beyond a doubt. They introduced themselves as members of a Bible college on the way back from a mission to Africa, one purpose of which, it turned out, had been to test some of the tenets of creationism. As they sought to engage me in discus¬sion, I warned them that they would lose, as I knew the evidence pretty well. ‘No,’ they insisted, ‘you don't know all the facts.’ So we got into it. When I said, ‘But of course you accept the fact that we have fossils of many creatures that no longer live,’ they re¬sponded, ‘No!’”

“‘What do you mean, 'no'? What about the dinosaurs?’”

“‘The dinosaurs are still alive and roaming the earth!’”

“‘That's ridiculous! Where?’”

“‘In Africa.’”

“‘In Africa? Africa is full of people. Dinosaurs are really big. How come no one has seen one?’”

“‘They live deep in the jungle.’”

“‘Someone would still have seen one. Do you claim to know someone who has seen one?’”

“‘The pygmies tell us they see them every once in a while. We looked and we didn't see any, but we saw the scratch marks they make eighteen to twenty feet up on the trunks of trees.’”

“‘So you agree they are huge animals. And the fossil evidence is that they live in big herds. How could it be that nobody but these pygmies have seen them?’”

“‘That's easy. They spend most of their time hibernating in caves.’”

“‘In the jungle? There are caves in the jungle?’”

“‘Yes, of course, why not?’”

“‘Caves big enough for a huge dinosaur to enter? If the caves are so big, they should be easy to find, and you can look inside and see them sleeping.’”

“‘To protect themselves while they hibernate, the dinosaurs close up the mouths of their caves with dirt so no one can tell they're there. ‘”

“‘How do they close up the caves so well they can't be seen? Do they use their paws, or perhaps they push the dirt with their noses?’”

“At this point, the creationists admitted they didn't know, but they told me that ‘biblical biologists’ from their school were in the jungles now, looking for the dinosaurs.”

“‘Be sure to let me know if they bring out a live one,’ I said, and went back to my seat.”

“I am not making this up, and I'm not telling this just for your amusement. It illustrates that rationality is not always a simple ex¬ercise. Usually it is rational to disbelieve a theory that predicts something that has never been seen. But sometimes there is a good reason for something never having been seen. After all, if there are dinosaurs, they must be hiding somewhere. Why not in caves in the African jungle?”

“This may seem silly, but particle physicists have more than once felt the need to invent an unseen particle, such as the neutrino, in order to make sense of certain theoretical or mathematical results. To explain why it was difficult to detect, they had to make the neutrino interact very weakly. In this case, it was the right strategy, for many years later someone was able to devise an experiment that did find neutrinos. And they did interact very weakly.”


The cross-section for detecting a neutrino is 10-45 cm2 the cross section for a graviton is 10-65 cm2.

Rothman and Broughn state:

“Freeman Dyson has questioned whether any conceivable experiment in the
real universe can detect a single graviton. If not, is it meaningful to talk about
gravitons as physical entities? We attempt to answer Dyson’s question and find
it is possible concoct an idealized thought experiment capable of detecting one
graviton; however, when anything remotely resembling realistic physics is taken
into account, detection becomes impossible, indicating that Dyson’s conjecture
is very likely true. We also point out several mistakes in the literature dealing
with graviton detection and production.” Tony Rothman and Stephen Broughn, “Can Gravitons be Detected,” http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0601/0601043v1.pdf P. 1



so, is physics doing with the graviton the same thing the YECs are doing with dinos? Of the magnetic monopole the universe, needs them to exist, yet it only needs 1, which may be so far away that we will never detect it. If that is the case, how can it be said to actually be science?

[Mark Little]

so, is physics doing with the graviton the same thing the YECs are doing with dinos? Of the magnetic monopole the universe, needs them to exist, yet it only needs 1, which may be so far away that we will never detect it. If that is the case, how can it be said to actually be science?If you think they are the same thing, then I'm afraid I think your ethical, or at least your academic compass, may need recalibrating.

Things like gravitons, etc are speculation and that is recognised as no experiment has been able to confirm them. It is also recognised that the theory will need to change if they are found not to exist. In these cases, there are mathematical underpinnings that point to the possible existance of things like gravitons, strings and so, but that does not make them a reality. They remain speculation until there is enough evidence to support their existance. The methodology by which these speculations are investigated follows the scientific methodology even before there is evidence for or against their existance.

If as you appear to be saying the YEC position in relation to dinosaurs is "the same thing", I have not seen anything to support that hypothesis. Perhaps you can point me to some material where you think it can be shown that is "the same thing"?

Frankly, I don't think you will be able to show a consistent methodology, let alone one that provides a coherent theory, theoretical underpinnings and a relevant test methodology, but I'm ready to be suprised. In fact, I think you will be hard pressed to even get acknowledgement that their theories will need to change if they are wrong. Indeed I have seen at least two organisations that state that the outcome is immutable, irrespective of the evidence.

Somehow simply having people arguing back and forth that "My divine revelation out-trumps your divine revelation" doesn't fit into my idea of a sound scientific methodology. There is no way I'm getting into an aeroplane that could been designed using aerodynamics that would allow the divine revelation of the physicist to explain why the design won't just fall out of the sky.

[grmorton]

If you think they are the same thing, then I'm afraid I think your ethical, or at least your academic compass, may need recalibrating.

Things like gravitons, etc are speculation and that is recognised as no experiment has been able to confirm them. It is also recognised that the theory will need to change if they are found not to exist. In these cases, there are mathematical underpinnings that point to the possible existance of things like gravitons, strings and so, but that does not make them a reality. They remain speculation until there is enough evidence to support their existance. The methodology by which these speculations are investigated follows the scientific methodology even before there is evidence for or against their existance.

Thanks for your concern for my compass, but I think it is quite fine. you seem to have overlooked the 'mathematical underpinnings of advanced waves' Mathematical underpinnings are no guarantee of truth.


If as you appear to be saying the YEC position in relation to dinosaurs is "the same thing", I have not seen anything to support that hypothesis. Perhaps you can point me to some material where you think it can be shown that is "the same thing"?

I think I did. the atheist physicist Smolin was the one to make the comparison. Don't gripe at me for using it, and agreeing with it, but the argument is his.



Frankly, I don't think you will be able to show a consistent methodology, let alone one that provides a coherent theory, theoretical underpinnings and a relevant test methodology, but I'm ready to be suprised. In fact, I think you will be hard pressed to even get acknowledgement that their theories will need to change if they are wrong. Indeed I have seen at least two organisations that state that the outcome is immutable, irrespective of the evidence.

I will agree that I will not have a theory of theological entities. What I am saying is that when you all throw those charges around that we theists are the stupid ones because we believe in unseen bunnies, I think it is fair game to throw back in your face the unseen bunnies reductionism requires.




Somehow simply having people arguing back and forth that "My divine revelation out-trumps your divine revelation" doesn't fit into my idea of a sound scientific methodology. There is no way I'm getting into an aeroplane that could been designed using aerodynamics that would allow the divine revelation of the physicist to explain why the design won't just fall out of the sky.

have you ever looked into the nature of the anthropological sciences? There is simply no agreement on anythng other than the simple fact that there are fossils and that mankind evolved. Beyond that, you can find two or three camps on every single issue. Why? Experimentum crucis is almost non-existent, in other words, anthropology is almost like a philosophy.

One other thing along these regards. Ever hear of that guy, I forget the name, who dreamed of a snake eating its tail and when he woke up had the solution to benzene's chemical formula? Some post modernists loudly proclaim that things like this show that science also works like primitive shamanism--spiritual enlightenment through dreams. Reality is, things are not as neat as you want them to be and no matter how hard you try to believe that all is neat, it won't make it so.

[Mark Little]

Thanks for your concern for my compass, but I think it is quite fine. you seem to have overlooked the 'mathematical underpinnings of advanced waves' Mathematical underpinnings are no guarantee of truth.But Glen, that is exactly what I said. :huh: I even made speculation bold to make sure that it was obvious. In fact I even went on to state that because there was a mathematical underpinning did not mean that it relfected reality.

Did you read what I wrote?

I think I did. the atheist physicist Smolin was the one to make the comparison. Don't gripe at me for using it, and agreeing with it, but the argument is his.Does it matter that someone else said something? I can find someone who said anything about anything. If you want to use the argument, it seems to me that you should be able to support what you believe. Perhaps this just a difference between our ways of thinking?


I will agree that I will not have a theory of theological entities. What I am saying is that when you all throw those charges around that we theists are the stupid ones because we believe in unseen bunnies, I think it is fair game to throw back in your face the unseen bunnies reductionism requires.However, Glen, if you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that I don't consider those things to be "Truth" and the concept is open to change if the evidence indicates a need. I think it would be fair to say that the people in the thread stated they are not open to that recalibration.


have you ever looked into the nature of the anthropological sciences? There is simply no agreement on anythng other than the simple fact that there are fossils and that mankind evolved. Beyond that, you can find two or three camps on every single issue. Why? Experimentum crucis is almost non-existent, in other words, anthropology is almost like a philosophy.I don't disagree, but that shouldn't be a suprise given what I wrote.


One other thing along these regards. Ever hear of that guy, I forget the name, who dreamed of a snake eating its tail and when he woke up had the solution to benzene's chemical formula? Some post modernists loudly proclaim that things like this show that science also works like primitive shamanism--spiritual enlightenment through dreams. Reality is, things are not as neat as you want them to be and no matter how hard you try to believe that all is neat, it won't make it so.I think you are confusing inspiration with methodolgy. Surely you aren't suggesting that he didn't need to theorise and obtain results just because he had a dream? I've often woken up with a concept and attempted to apply it - not all work, so we shouldn't get too carried away with anecdotes. Even the ones that did work were subjected to same rigour in analysis and testing.

[grmorton]

But Glen, that is exactly what I said. :huh: I even made speculation bold to make sure that it was obvious. In fact I even went on to state that because there was a mathematical underpinning did not mean that it relfected reality.
Did you read what I wrote?


Well, I guess I misread it. There are lots of distractions right now, I have just become a grandfather again, a grandson this time and I am keeping my grand-daughter with whom I have to have frequent tea-parties. My apologies.



Does it matter that someone else said something? I can find someone who said anything about anything. If you want to use the argument, it seems to me that you should be able to support what you believe. Perhaps this just a difference between our ways of thinking?


It is relevant to the point, and i think it is applicable. What you seem to miss in theory building is that there are three things a theory must successfully do. It must explain what is, make preditions and explain way the things that ought to be seen but aren't. Guth's inflation explains away the fact that we don't see the monopole. It explains the flatness and the horizon problem. That is what the YECs were doing, that is what physicists were doing with gravitons and why they haven't been seen--explaining it away.


I think you are confusing inspiration with methodolgy. Surely you aren't suggesting that he didn't need to theorise and obtain results just because he had a dream? I've often woken up with a concept and attempted to apply it - not all work, so we shouldn't get too carried away with anecdotes. Even the ones that did work were subjected to same rigour in analysis and testing.


No, I didn't say he needed to theorize. And clearly things need to be verified and I agree that YECs and JM in particular have no desire to verify anything.

[grmorton]

I just looked at a site I read with regularity, www.theoildrum.com. I would point people to a very scary article to be found there. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2470#more. this page notes what has been happening to Saudi oil production and it isn't pretty. It says:

In particular, Saudi oil production has been falling with increasing speeed since summer 2005, and overall, since mid 2004, about 2 million barrels of oil per day in production has gone missing (about 1mbpd in reduction in total production, and about another 1mbpd in that two major new projects, Qatif and Haradh III, failed to increase overall production). That's 2.5% of world production and, if that production hadn't gone missing, gasoline in the US likely would still be somewhere in the vicinity of $2/gallon instead of well over $3.


When they say that 2 million bbl/day have disapeared it works out like this, Atif and Haradh were supposed to add 1.1 million barrels per day of production but instead, the Saudis have lost an additional million bbl/day. The last year of Saudi production looks like a classical depletion curve. For those who don't know what that means, trust me, it is not a good thing. It would mean that the Saudi production is in real trouble.

I would also like to point out that the major oil companies (none of whom have I worked for) do not control enough oil to do diddly about this situation. Governments own most of the world's oil and we all know what a great job governments do with anything they touch.

I would like to point out the difference between arm-chair pontificating and faith Today, I made a huge financial bet on oil--that is faith. arm-chair pontificating would be not making that bet. For those who don't like faith, they forget that it permeates all aspects of life. But seeing this chart tonight comforts me. I might be begging lodging at your house if I am wrong :lol:

Anyone wanting to learn more about Ghawar, the largest field in the world, see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm

edited to add, don't take my investment advice, check with your investment advisor. I am not responsible for your stupid investment decisions even if they are the same as my stupid investment decisions.

[gallileo]

Glenn,

1. Is is your opinion that we are in decline or due to some projects in the works + CTL, GTL etc will we plateau until 2010-2015 ? If you think decline yes, what would you say the rate is ?

2. What will oil max out at in $$/barrel as alternatives slowly are introduced ?

FYI I filled up today for $1.48 /gal on my CNG( compressed natural gas) car. :teeth: I am working on installing a compressor to refuel at home for $1.25. But this won't help if we are all out of work.

Cheers . . hopefully.

[Roy]

I just looked at a site I read with regularity, www.theoildrum.com. I would point people to a very scary article to be found there. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2470#more. this page notes what has been happening to Saudi oil production and it isn't pretty.

Even the tabloids are getting in on the act (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=454275&in_page_id=1770)

Roy

[NeilUnreal]

The scariest thing to me is that, even with gas prices pushing up to $4 a gallon, people are not changing their driving habits. In many cases, they can't really be faulted for this, because the employment patterns they are in were set up before the prices increased. But there appears to be almost no change in pattern, not even much cutting back in other areas. I worry that many people are accomplishing this by depleting savings or going into debt, hoping that somehow "things will get better" or "scientists will discover something."

The fact that average people are willing and able to leverage debt to maintain a fantasy lifestyle it does not bode well for the future. This implies that, if we find more supply, rather than profiting from the warning and seeing that new supply as a temporary reprieve, we will simply suck it dry.

-Neil

[Ryokan]

The scariest thing to me is that, even with gas prices pushing up to $4 a gallon, people are not changing their driving habits. In many cases, they can't really be faulted for this, because the employment patterns they are in were set up before the prices increased. But there appears to be almost no change in pattern, not even much cutting back in other areas. I worry that many people are accomplishing this by depleting savings or going into debt, hoping that somehow "things will get better" or "scientists will discover something." I think you are being too pessimistic. People have been changing their purchasing patterns in regards to automobiles and in time, given the will change where they live or employment if necessary. You have to understand that in the short run demand for gasoline is very inelastic, but that is not so in the long run this si not so. Its also worth realizing gas is still not at its highest point cost wise historically, and when you look at it as a percentage of peoples income.... For real change gas will have to be alot more expensive. The truth is msot Americans can afford the higher prices by making small changes in their descretionary income.


The fact that average people are willing and able to leverage debt to maintain a fantasy lifestyle it does not bode well for the future. This implies that, if we find more supply, rather than profiting from the warning and seeing that new supply as a temporary reprieve, we will simply suck it dry. Right now I think you are jsut disconnected from the present reality of the threat. Your fears for the future and well known dislike of American societies structure related to automobiles is clouding your judgement I think.

-Neil[/QUOTE]

[grmorton]

Glenn,

1. Is is your opinion that we are in decline or due to some projects in the works + CTL, GTL etc will we plateau until 2010-2015 ? If you think decline yes, what would you say the rate is ?

One hesitates to actually call the peak, but the world has been producing flat out for a couple of years and the production rate has been flat. That isn't a good sign, especially with Cantarell field (the now 3rd most productive field) falling like a rock from the sky; and Burgan field (now #2) already producing 200,000 bbl/day less than it did 2 years ago, and Ghawar declining. The projects on tap are going to be hard pressed to replace the quantity of oil being lost to decline. I simply don't see a way to last until 2010-2015. But if people quite using oil at the rate we are, that could happen. That has happened before.

You will read that in the 70's people used to say peak oil would be in the mid-1990s, but it didn't happen. Why? Because the world figured out how to use less oil/GDP of economic activity and that delayed the day of peak oil. I can already see changes to the way the economy works which is reducing our need for oil so efficiencies will continue, but they will have less ability to delay the peak than if they had been instituted 20 years ago. I think these structural changes to the economy are why the price of oil right now is not through the roof.


2. What will oil max out at in $$/barrel as alternatives slowly are introduced ?

If I knew that I would know precisely when to sell. But the only realistic, presently known replacement is coal.


FYI I filled up today for $1.48 /gal on my CNG( compressed natural gas) car. :teeth: I am working on installing a compressor to refuel at home for $1.25. But this won't help if we are all out of work.

I am impressed. Do you know what the decline rate of the average natural gas well is in the US today? Close to 50%

[gallileo]

I am impressed. Do you know what the decline rate of the average natural gas well is in the US today? Close to 50%

From what I have read the decline is not that bad. If it was, we would have 1/2 the amount of gas for winter heat and industrial uses also. I have to defer to your professional judgement but what is the evidence for that ? My impression was that the gas peak is maybe about 10 years off and some of this may be softened by LNG terminal construction.

In any case, hey I am happy , I got a cheap used car for $8K 2 years ago and in another 2 - 3 years it will be free at current gas prices or better. A poor man's Prius at 1/3 the cost. (If you figure gas vs CNG costs I am getting 60 mpg vs Prius at 48 mpg).

I'd agree coal is a major part of the equation but look at Uranium/nuclear too. There is a nuclear renaissance starting ,and the politicos and some enviros realize it has to be part of the solution. I have done really well on U stocks and may get back in if they cool off a bit. Solar might get there but it is still too expensive IMO.

I think the economy will adjust but not without serious difficulties during the transition ahead.

Thanks for your input and any comments you might want to add on how rocky a coal/nuke/transition would be.

Cheers.

[grmorton]

From what I have read the decline is not that bad. If it was, we would have 1/2 the amount of gas for winter heat and industrial uses also. I have to defer to your professional judgement but what is the evidence for that ? My impression was that the gas peak is maybe about 10 years off and some of this may be softened by LNG terminal construction.

I think you misunderstand. It isn't the over all production decline, but the decline for an individual well. It is well above 40%. What keeps the gas flowing is continued drilling. The world is on this incredible hamster wheel. The oil industry has to drill faster to keep up with the decline of the individual wells.


In any case, hey I am happy , I got a cheap used car for $8K 2 years ago and in another 2 - 3 years it will be free at current gas prices or better. A poor man's Prius at 1/3 the cost. (If you figure gas vs CNG costs I am getting 60 mpg vs Prius at 48 mpg).

I am impressed.


I'd agree coal is a major part of the equation but look at Uranium/nuclear too. There is a nuclear renaissance starting ,and the politicos and some enviros realize it has to be part of the solution. I have done really well on U stocks and may get back in if they cool off a bit. Solar might get there but it is still too expensive IMO.

I am only in U stocks via mutual funds. I figure if one is going to invest, one should invest what one knows--I know oil and coal. I don't know U very well so I let the pros in the mutual fund do it for me.



Thanks for your input and any comments you might want to add on how rocky a coal/nuke/transition would be.

Cheers.

I think it will be rockier than most. For the first point, we don't seem to have a huge resource for nuclear fuel. From what I have seen it is about a 25 year supply. If we totally replaced oil with coal, the US 200 year supply of coal would last about 44 years. The world has really about 50 years to figure out how to do hydrogen fusion or we are in real trouble. Transportation is going to take the biggest hit and it will happen the soonest.

[Ryokan]

I think it will be rockier than most. For the first point, we don't seem to have a huge resource for nuclear fuel. From what I have seen it is about a 25 year supply. If we totally replaced oil with coal, the US 200 year supply of coal would last about 44 years. The world has really about 50 years to figure out how to do hydrogen fusion or we are in real trouble. Transportation is going to take the biggest hit and it will happen the soonest.

Where do these numbers come from? And what sort of growth projections are these based on?

[gallileo]

For the first point, we don't seem to have a huge resource for nuclear fuel. From what I have seen it is about a 25 year supply. If we totally replaced oil with coal, the US 200 year supply of coal would last about 44 years.

I'd agree with your assessment of current U supplies, but realize there is a lot of potential.

The use of breeder reactors alone would stretch out supplies by a factor of 50. In addition, we can also use Thorium, or even extract the U from seawater. These are economic at roughly 2 - 4x current market prices for U which is pretty high now. They would stretch supplies into many thousands of years. I can get into detail for those of you that are interested, but for now here are a few links:

Nuclear link /Cohen-
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/
Thorium info and MS Breeders -
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
John McCarthy on progress -
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html
--On Nuclear http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

On solar technolgies currently the $/MW is about 3x that of fossil fired plants. But, we have not completed many solar plants to use mass production to reduce costs. Per the DOE site below,
"enough electric power for the entire country could be generated by covering about 9 percent of Nevada – a plot of land 100 miles on a side – with parabolic trough systems."

CSP Solar - http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/overview.htm
===========================================================
I am pessimisstic like you Glenn, that we will solve the problem in the near term since a lot of changes will have to be accomplished fast.

But in the long term I think the resources are there. So it wil be a struggle but mankind will be Ok in the long term.
===========================================================

[TheGreenMan]

I think it will be rockier than most. For the first point, we don't seem to have a huge resource for nuclear fuel. From what I have seen it is about a 25 year supply.

I have a question here. I vaguly remember hearing that if you use sodium(?), sulpher(?), or something like that instead of water it basically means that the nuclear fuel can last forever and does not become depleated. However using this is dangerous for some reason or another.

Is this true?

Keep in mind this is a very vague memory from some TV show about nuclear reactors on the History Channel and some or all of the details may be off.

However if it or something like it is true is someone working on improving the tech to make it work?

[grmorton]

Where do these numbers come from? And what sort of growth projections are these based on?

My calculations based upon the BP Statistical Review. If you did away with oil instantly and substituted coal for it, that is how long it would last. Now, obviously, oil will taper off but it illustrates that by the latter part of this century, we will really have a tough energy problem.

[grmorton]

I have a question here. I vaguly remember hearing that if you use sodium(?), sulpher(?), or something like that instead of water it basically means that the nuclear fuel can last forever and does not become depleated. However using this is dangerous for some reason or another.

Is this true?

Keep in mind this is a very vague memory from some TV show about nuclear reactors on the History Channel and some or all of the details may be off.

However if it or something like it is true is someone working on improving the tech to make it work?

THat sounds like a perpetual motion machine.

[Ryokan]

My calculations based upon the BP Statistical Review. If you did away with oil instantly and substituted coal for it, that is how long it would last. Now, obviously, oil will taper off but it illustrates that by the latter part of this century, we will really have a tough energy problem.

I am no expert, but the little I have seen seems to project continued economic growth and continued demand increaes for energy, things that are unlikely to happen under these circumstances.

[grmorton]

I'd agree with your assessment of current U supplies, but realize there is a lot of potential.

The use of breeder reactors alone would stretch out supplies by a factor of 50. In addition, we can also use Thorium, or even extract the U from seawater. These are economic at roughly 2 - 4x current market prices for U which is pretty high now. They would stretch supplies into many thousands of years. I can get into detail for those of you that are interested, but for now here are a few links:

Nuclear link /Cohen-
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/
Thorium info and MS Breeders -
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
John McCarthy on progress -
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html
--On Nuclear http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

On solar technolgies currently the $/MW is about 3x that of fossil fired plants. But, we have not completed many solar plants to use mass production to reduce costs. Per the DOE site below,
"enough electric power for the entire country could be generated by covering about 9 percent of Nevada – a plot of land 100 miles on a side – with parabolic trough systems."

CSP Solar - http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/overview.htm
===========================================================
I am pessimisstic like you Glenn, that we will solve the problem in the near term since a lot of changes will have to be accomplished fast.

But in the long term I think the resources are there. So it wil be a struggle but mankind will be Ok in the long term.
===========================================================

Re: getting uranium from seawater (as Cohen thinks is possible.
When dealing with these issues, one must think in terms of business. THe first hurdle of business is the engergetics--does the system produce more energy than it consumes. I didn't see any energetics discussions in what you posted. How much energy does it take to extract uranium from seawater? I found one interesting experiment where in 240 days of submersion in the sea, some absorbers got 1 kg of yellowcake.
http://www.taka.jaea.go.jp/eimr_div/j637/theme3%20sea_e.html

If my math is correct (always a subject for discussion), we use 5 million kg of uranium per year. This means we need around 4.5 million of these. What is the energy to make them? To tend them? To harvest and separate the uranium from the absorber material?


Resources is rarely the answer. Reserves is what one must have in any discussion of energy. This trips lots of people up. Resources are what is out there. Reserves is what can be economically extracted and moved to market. The world actually has the resources of oil to last us over 300 years (10 trillion barrels-an estimate--divided by 30 billion bbl used each year). The reason this is a meaningless calculation is that 70-80% of the oil is dispersed in non-reservoir rocks and will never be extracted and brought to market.

Similarly, looking to the ocean may be like looking to the dispersed oil in the worlds sedimentary rocks. How much of it is actually extractable (what percentage). Clearly the last 1% won't be extractable because that would almost mean circulating through the entire world's ocean waters to get it. Surely that would take more energy than one would get out of the last 1%. These are the questions one must answer, and have some good numbers for before one can do as Cohen does and claim that we will forever have energy from seawater (which is not much different than the old myth about a guy running his car on water back in WWI).

[gallileo]

http://www.taka.jaea.go.jp/eimr_div/j637/theme3%20sea_e.html

If my math is correct (always a subject for discussion), we use 5 million kg of uranium per year. This means we need around 4.5 million of these. What is the energy to make them? To tend them? To harvest and separate the uranium from the absorber material?



Glenn,

I can get back to you with some really good figures, but for now:

1. I think world U demand is about 60000 kt so you could use 6 million kg. Using the U from seawater current estimate is ~$200-400/lb. So since the current price is $130/lb, electricity can be obtained at current rates, since fuel cost is a very minor part of the total unlike fossil fuels. The EROI is a good question, but based on current economics we know the energy price is factored in. So, if U goes to $400/lb I would estimate the Kwh cost might only increase 35% ballpark. So that means EROI is still ok, since nuke has a good EROI now : may be 10 or 20 to 1 at least.

2. With breeder reactors, we have to figure an extension of supplies by 40x. Thorium , roughly the same. This brings us in to the 1000's of years figures without the U from seawater extraction process.

Ok now since it is pretty late, I will get back to everyone with really good figures if you want inside of a couple of days.

My main point is :

1. You are absolutely right, we are in deep doo doo with energy. The Hirsch report and lots of material spells it out. The problem is there is not a good feedback to the free market for this information , so there is gonna be a big problem.

2. In the long term, we can solve our energy issues through solar or nuclear at least. That is the opinion of George Olah in The Methanol Economy . So I don't feel there are any unsolvable problems to fixing this, and in fact there are available technologies that have not been adopted since the current ones are adequate until supplies run out. The problem is the time to install a new infrastructure, not unavailable technology. For example, the solar technologies demonstrated by NREL in the Mojave desert work just fine but are about 4 - 6x more expensive. But, that is a proven solution with an inexhaustible source. I would prefer a nuclear solution, because it is competitive economically. I like my electric rates where they are.

3. In the meanwhile, I am going to buy another CNG car, get my compressor going, change jobs into the energy field (probably nuclear), stay out of debt, and invest what I can wisely. If the s**t hits the fan, I will be converting cars here to CNG also. CNG cars can run on hydrogen also, they just have less range. Based on my electric rates, I can fuel the car with H2 for about $3/gal equivalent. But that is really long term at this point.


Good luck to all.

[grmorton]

Glenn,

I can get back to you with some really good figures, but for now:

1. I think world U demand is about 60000 kt so you could use 6 million kg. Using the U from seawater current estimate is ~$200-400/lb. So since the current price is $130/lb, electricity can be obtained at current rates, since fuel cost is a very minor part of the total unlike fossil fuels. The EROI is a good question, but based on current economics we know the energy price is factored in. So, if U goes to $400/lb I would estimate the Kwh cost might only increase 35% ballpark. So that means EROI is still ok, since nuke has a good EROI now : may be 10 or 20 to 1 at least.

2. With breeder reactors, we have to figure an extension of supplies by 40x. Thorium , roughly the same. This brings us in to the 1000's of years figures without the U from seawater extraction process.

Ok now since it is pretty late, I will get back to everyone with really good figures if you want inside of a couple of days.

My main point is :

1. You are absolutely right, we are in deep doo doo with energy. The Hirsch report and lots of material spells it out. The problem is there is not a good feedback to the free market for this information , so there is gonna be a big problem.

2. In the long term, we can solve our energy issues through solar or nuclear at least. That is the opinion of George Olah in The Methanol Economy . So I don't feel there are any unsolvable problems to fixing this, and in fact there are available technologies that have not been adopted since the current ones are adequate until supplies run out. The problem is the time to install a new infrastructure, not unavailable technology. For example, the solar technologies demonstrated by NREL in the Mojave desert work just fine but are about 4 - 6x more expensive. But, that is a proven solution with an inexhaustible source. I would prefer a nuclear solution, because it is competitive economically. I like my electric rates where they are.

3. In the meanwhile, I am going to buy another CNG car, get my compressor going, change jobs into the energy field (probably nuclear), stay out of debt, and invest what I can wisely. If the s**t hits the fan, I will be converting cars here to CNG also. CNG cars can run on hydrogen also, they just have less range. Based on my electric rates, I can fuel the car with H2 for about $3/gal equivalent. But that is really long term at this point.


Good luck to all.


I would like to see better numbers, but I sincerely thank you for these, they are interesting. One thing no one is figuring into the solution (and indeed it is very difficult to figure in), is the political part of the problem. As energy goes up, political pressures build on the politicians around the world to do something. Politiicians are like cockroaches, they can't carry too much off, but whatever they fall into, they spoil for everyone.

Some countries will nationalize (and give us more of the likes of Pemex or PDVSA), other countries will have demigogues who blame other countries leading to wars. It will be very difficult to solve the energy problem when countries are throwing nukes at each other and I consider this to be a real possibility. I consider it possible (don't know how likely) based upon the precipitous fall in production I saw in the UK. If in 10 years from now, the world is producing 50% of the oil we currently are, what will one think the political state of the world will be?

Tough question

[Ryokan]

I would like to see better numbers, but I sincerely thank you for these, they are interesting. One thing no one is figuring into the solution (and indeed it is very difficult to figure in), is the political part of the problem. As energy goes up, political pressures build on the politicians around the world to do something. Politiicians are like cockroaches, they can't carry too much off, but whatever they fall into, they spoil for everyone.

Some countries will nationalize (and give us more of the likes of Pemex or PDVSA), other countries will have demigogues who blame other countries leading to wars. It will be very difficult to solve the energy problem when countries are throwing nukes at each other and I consider this to be a real possibility. I consider it possible (don't know how likely) based upon the precipitous fall in production I saw in the UK. If in 10 years from now, the world is producing 50% of the oil we currently are, what will one think the political state of the world will be?

Tough question
I am out of my league on the geological end here, gr, but I am qualified enough on the political and economic end to say if oil was produced at 50% the rate it is today ten years from now you are dramatically underestimating the political effects. You talked earlier about hedging against it? That's a waist of time. You want to stuff your money, in gold, under your bed cushions. There would be a global economic collapse along the lines of the great depression, only with little hope of recovery. Several major currencies, especially ours, would collapse. Its likely several major nations, especially China and Russia, would fall to civil war or ultrnationalism. It would be the end of the current world order. Possibly of complex life on earth depending on how stupid our leadership was. The only positive end would be at the end of all these the size of our economy would have contracted to a point the oil would last a bit longer.

[NeilUnreal]

I tend to be optimistic about what we could do with the remaing oil (assuming it is running out), but pessimistic about what we will do.

We could use our remaining oil to transition to post-petroleum lifestyles, simpler in most ways than our current lifestyles, yet better than our ancestors if we use that oil to maintain levels of medicine, nutrition, hygene, education, etc.

I suspect, unfortunately, that main push will be to find ways to continue burning that oil at current or even increasing rates, while pretending the petroleum horizon doesn't exist.

The problem is, the momentum in our infrastructure means that when the hard decisions are finally forced on us by economics, much of the energy we need to shift that infrastructure will have been spent.

-Neil