Discussion: The origins of oil is irrelevant

[Asguard]

Proposal thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83062&page=3)

Debate thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83148)

This thread is for non debate paticipants to share there views on the debate

[Asguard]

Syzygys i quite like your dodo analogy but i have another one for you and thats the murray darling Basin which is the main water surplie for adelaide and for irrigation all the way from Queensland, down through NSW and the ACT, through victoria and into SA where its SURPOSED to exit into the sea. Now water is a renuable resorce but not if you over use it. The river system is so over alocated that it hasnt exited into the ocean in AGES and now the lakes and wet lands which keep the river healthy are also dying.

here is a wikipedia artical on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Darling_basin

[James R]

A point of order:

From the Proposal thread for this Debate, I cannot see any agreement as to the rules for the debate (e.g. total number of posts, time allowed, who the participants are, etc.)

I ask Syzygys and OilisMastery to post here their agreement to the Standard Rules for a One-on-One Formal Debate.

If these rules are agreed, the debate can proceed. If you wish to change any of the rules, then I suggest that the debate be suspended until agreement is reached.

[OilIsMastery]

That won't be necessary because I already won.

[James R]

You can't win a debate you don't have, OilIsMastery.

Are you backing down?

[pjdude1219]

That won't be necessary because I already won.

how is insulting everyone who disagrees with you winning?

[James R]

It appears that OilisMastery has forfeited in this debate, and Syzygys "wins" by default.

[CheskiChips]

Knowing the origins of oil could help us find a more effective way for synthesis.

[Syzygys]

That is actually a good argument, although the debate was more about producing oil not making it....

[kmguru]

Should not it be that if oil is biogenic then it is a limited supply, but if it is abiogenic then the supply could be 10,000X ? Are we debating on the right framework?...May be I missed something somewhere....:confused:

[OilIsMastery]

There was no debate.

"We’ve barely tapped, from the exploration point of view, the hydrocarbon potential that’s out there on this planet." -- Stanley B. Keith, 2005

"We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now." -- Larry M. Cathles, 2003

"I don't think anybody's arguing that gas couldn't be generated from the mantle." -- Barry J. Katz, 2002

"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons." -- Michael D. Lewan, 2002

"There has not been any 'debate' about the origin of hydrocarbons for over a century. Competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological material since the last quarter of the 19th century." -- Jack F. Kenney, 2002

"Natural petroleum has no connection with biological matter." -- Jack F. Kenney, 2001

"I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating." -- Jean K. Whelan, 1999

"These reservoirs are refilling with oil." -- David Sibley, 1999

"The industry will never run out of oil, not in 10,000 years. Some day, it may run out of customers. Every mineral industry is a perpetual tug-of-war, between diminishing returns and increasing knowledge." -- Morris A. Adelman, 1997

"Neither we, nor our grandchildren, nor their grandchildren will live to see the end of the oil era." -- Karl-Heinz Schult-Bornemann, 1997

"The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986)." -- Jack F. Kenney, 1996

"Stable carbon isotopes are not a reliable criterion for distinguishing biogenic from non-biogenic petroleum." -- A.A. Giardini and Charles E. Melton, 1991

"The general concept of petroleum formation by biogenic mechanisms has been firmly entrenched for a long time, but there has been no accumulation of convincing experimental evidence in support of this belief." -- Charles E. Melton and A.A. Giardini, 1983

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." -- Fred Hoyle, 1982

"Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration." -- Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, 1968

“Several times in the past we have thought we were running out of oil whereas actually we were only running out of ideas.” -- Parke A. Dickey, 1958

"The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths." -- Vladimir B. Porfir'yev, 1956

"Oil is the creature of direct action of common earth forces on common earth materials." -- Wallace E. Pratt, 1942

"All the petroleum, natural gas, and bituminous fields or deposits cannot be regarded as anything else but the products of solfotaric volcanic emanations condensed and held in their passage upward in the porous tanks of all ages of the crust of the earth from the Archaean rocks to the Quaternary. Nothing is so simple and therefore nothing so natural as this origin, and we will see that it can be abundantly proven." -- Eugene Coste, 1903

"It is obvious that the total amount of petroleum in the rocks underlying the surface ... is large beyond computation." -- Edward Orton, 1888

"The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the Earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, 1877

"It may be supposed that naphta was produced by the action of water penetrating through the crevices of the strata during the upheaval of mountain chains because water with iron carbide ought to give iron oxide and hydrocarbons." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, 1877

"Whether naphta was formed by organic matter is very doubtful, as it is found in the most ancient Silurian [Ordovician] strata which correspond with the epochs of the earth's existence when there was very little organic matter; it could not penetrate from the higher to the lower (more ancient) strata as it floats on water (and water penetrates through all strata)." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, 1877

"Petroleum is the product of a distillation from great depth and issues from the primitive rocks beneath which the forces of all volcanic action lie." -- Alexander Von Humboldt, 1804

[James R]

Who are these people you've quoted?

[OilIsMastery]

Who are these people you've quoted?
They are all PhDs in the sciences.

If you'd ever taken a basic high school chemistry class you would know who Dmitri Mendeleyev is.

[Trippy]

"We’ve barely tapped, from the exploration point of view, the hydrocarbon potential that’s out there on this planet." -- Stanley B. Keith, 2005

Irrelevant to any discussion, this is merely a statement of position/opinion. The statement does nothing to address the origin of those hydrocarbons.

"We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now." -- Larry M. Cathles, 2003

Could just as easily be argued to support biogenisis, as this quote does not discuss the origins of the hydrocarbons, merely describes part of the system, and presents a description supported by biogenisis.

"I don't think anybody's arguing that gas couldn't be generated from the mantle." -- Barry J. Katz, 2002

This quote simply states that Methane couold be generated in the mantle - alnowledging the possibility, says nothing of how important this source is. For all anybody knows, the context of this could have been "Yes, it's possible, but I don't think it's significant".

"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons." -- Michael D. Lewan, 2002

Again, this statement addresses the possibiloity of the source, not the importance of the source.

"There has not been any 'debate' about the origin of hydrocarbons for over a century. Competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological material since the last quarter of the 19th century." -- Jack F. Kenney, 2002

"Natural petroleum has no connection with biological matter." -- Jack F. Kenney, 2001

Although these two statements are clearly in favour of abiotic oil, Jack F Kenney appears to run a texas based oil company. I have been unable to ascertain if this individual possesses a PhD in a relevant field as has been claimed, however, clearly this individual has a vested interest in Abiotic oil over biotic oil, and convincing us that abiotic oil is a proven fact at this point - in much the same way that a tobacco tycoon has a vested interest in proving that smoking is safe.

"I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating." -- Jean K. Whelan, 1999

Does not address where the oil is migrating from, or to, nor does it address the ultimate origin of the oil.

"These reservoirs are refilling with oil." -- David Sibley, 1999

Does not address the rate at which the reservoirs are refilling.
Does not address the source of the oild (In fact biogenesis allows for some refilling).

"The industry will never run out of oil, not in 10,000 years. Some day, it may run out of customers. Every mineral industry is a perpetual tug-of-war, between diminishing returns and increasing knowledge." -- Morris A. Adelman, 1997

An unsubstantiated opinion that does nothing to support either biogenesis or abiogenesis. Simply a statement that he believes we have substantially more reserves then we currently estimate we do. Does nothing to address the origin of the oil. Adelman is an economist based out of MIT that has written at least one scathing paper regarding the oil economy, rather then the origins of oil.

Morris A. Adelman"Neither we, nor our grandchildren, nor their grandchildren will live to see the end of the oil era." -- Karl-Heinz Schult-Bornemann, 1997

This individual is a high ranking public relations 'officer' in Esso, therefore provably has a (non scientific) interest in promoting abiogenisis over biogenisis. Also, this comment is simply a comment about quantity, not quality.


"The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986)." -- Jack F. Kenney, 1996

I've already addressed this individuals quotes. It's also worth pointing out that the Russian-Ukranian theory of abiotic oil was initially politically motivated, and has yet to be used to successfully explore a field.

"Stable carbon isotopes are not a reliable criterion for distinguishing biogenic from non-biogenic petroleum." -- A.A. Giardini and Charles E. Melton, 1991

Does not address the the origins of the oil, merely questions the validity of one piece of evidence.

"The general concept of petroleum formation by biogenic mechanisms has been firmly entrenched for a long time, but there has been no accumulation of convincing experimental evidence in support of this belief." -- Charles E. Melton and A.A. Giardini, 1983

A statement of opinion only, arguably a proponent of the biogenic mechanism would say the asme thing about the abiogenic mechanism.

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." -- Fred Hoyle, 1982

While Fred Hoyle was a notable astrophysicist - mostly because of his work on stellar nucleosynthesis, this is simply an expression of unsubstantiated opinion, and Fred Hoyle was involved in a number of controversies involving opposition to 'mainstream theories'.

"Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration." -- Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, 1968

Potentially a politically motivated source, I (personally) have provided a more recent source which directly contradicts this statement, and have also pointed out a set of simple chemical reactions (the end state of an oxidative proccess) which directly contradicts this, and is thermodynamically viable at STP.

“Several times in the past we have thought we were running out of oil whereas actually we were only running out of ideas.” -- Parke A. Dickey, 1958

An accurate statement, however, does nothing to address the origins of oil, merely methods of extraction.

"The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths." -- Vladimir B. Porfir'yev, 1956

Arguably a politically motivated source - one doesn't get to be senior anything in 1950's soviet russia without being a model citizen.

"Oil is the creature of direct action of common earth forces on common earth materials." -- Wallace E. Pratt, 1942

Arguably, 'biological detritus' constitutes 'common earth materials', so this quote as it stands can be interepted any way the reader wants.

"All the petroleum, natural gas, and bituminous fields or deposits cannot be regarded as anything else but the products of solfotaric volcanic emanations condensed and held in their passage upward in the porous tanks of all ages of the crust of the earth from the Archaean rocks to the Quaternary. Nothing is so simple and therefore nothing so natural as this origin, and we will see that it can be abundantly proven." -- Eugene Coste, 1903

Solfotaric vulcanism is another name for fumaroles. Fumaroles occur where you have ground water lying above a heat source (normally in the vicinity of an active volcanoe, but not exclusively). Any correlation between oil deposition and fumarolic activity should not surprise anyone, as fumarolic activity indicates a heat source - one of the stated requirements for biogenesis. It should also be pointed out that this is an outdated source, using an outdated concept (nature is simple), therefore the quote is of at best questionable validity.

"It is obvious that the total amount of petroleum in the rocks underlying the surface ... is large beyond computation." -- Edward Orton, 1888

Does nothing to address the source of this petroleum, simply implies there may be more then we expect.

"The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the Earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, 1877

An assumption, and an opinion. One can only assume that Mendeleyev has been quoted as an appeal to authority (as indicated by the posters subsequent response), however it is well known that Mendeleyev predicted many things that did not come to pass, even with regards to the periodic table - He predicted lighter then hydrogen elements, and the Ether.

"It may be supposed that naphta was produced by the action of water penetrating through the crevices of the strata during the upheaval of mountain chains because water with iron carbide ought to give iron oxide and hydrocarbons." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, 1877

This quote directly contradicts one of the posters own sources which states that hydrocarbons are formed by the action of water on carbonates in high P/T regimes.

"Whether naphta was formed by organic matter is very doubtful, as it is found in the most ancient Silurian [Ordovician] strata which correspond with the epochs of the earth's existence when there was very little organic matter; it could not penetrate from the higher to the lower (more ancient) strata as it floats on water (and water penetrates through all strata)." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, 1877

An outdated quote based on incomplete information.

During the Silurian we find extensive land cover in the form of mosses near streams and lakes. We also know that by this stage there was extensive aquatic biota. Equally it is also known that there were several minor extinction events during the silurian that were associated with changes in geochemistry, rapid burial, and changes in erosion patterns.

It should also be pointed out that inversions are possible in strata for a variety of reasons.

"Petroleum is the product of a distillation from great depth and issues from the primitive rocks beneath which the forces of all volcanic action lie." -- Alexander Von Humboldt, 1804

Another outdated quote based on incomplete information.

[pjdude1219]

They are all PhDs in the sciences.

If you'd ever taken a basic high school chemistry class you would know who Dmitri Mendeleyev is.

The only sciences that mendeleyev is mentioned are biology and genitics.

[OilIsMastery]

The only sciences that mendeleyev is mentioned are biology and genitics.
LOL@U. You are confusing Mendeleyev with Mendel just as you confuse truth with falsehood.

[pjdude1219]

LOL@U. You are confusing Mendeleyev with Mendel just as you confuse truth with falsehood.

??? i get the first part not the second. You mean i don't confuse your bullshit for reality for the second don't you.

[OilIsMastery]

??? i get the first part not the second. You mean i don't confuse your bullshit for reality for the second don't you.
Mendeleyev was a chemist. He was the inventor of the periodic table of elements which you've obviously never heard of.

[synthesizer-patel]

The only sciences that mendeleyev is mentioned are biology and genitics.

You're thinking of Gregor Mendel

[Ophiolite]

You're thinking of Gregor MendelI think of him a lot too. Do you think it's contagious?

[synthesizer-patel]

I think of him a lot too. Do you think it's contagious?

well the dude did wear a dress:


http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/cm1504/Image215.gif

[Trippy]

Mendeleyev was a chemist. He was the inventor of the periodic table of elements which you've obviously never heard of.

There's a surprise >_>

He's completely mis representing what the other person is saying. I can't tell if this is deliberate, or if he simply misunderstood what was being said to him.

OIM: He was saying that he understands that Mendeleev was a chemist, ans that he was confusing Mendeleev with Mendel, however, he was also commenting on your nonsequitere that he also "Confuses truth with falsehood."

Sheesh.

[Buffalo Roam]

Mendeleyev was a chemist. He was the inventor of the periodic table of elements which you've obviously never heard of.

Forgive pjdude, he educated himself.

[listeria_m]

The only sciences that mendeleyev is mentioned are biology and genitics.

Are you sure pjdude? I mean are you REALLY sure? Before you answer, I suggest you google both Mendeleyev and Gregory Mendel.

[skycaptain]

Not to be contrary, but oil is being produced from molten magma in Fumeroles deep in the Ocean Floor. Deep diving bathyspheres found petroleum products bubbling up out of fissures 12000 to 24000 feet deep. Tremendous heat and pressure is actually cracking the molten minerals into liquid crude oil. Then the newly formed oil under pressure seeps through cracks and fissures in the crust up into voids we call oil fields. Texas fields that were pumped empty back in the 70's and capped have been reopened and found to contain new oil. So the earth is renewing itself as we speak.

[Syzygys]

So the earth is renewing itself as we speak.

You mean like your zits. As long as you pop them faster than your body renews them, the zits are losing... :)

[Ophiolite]

Not to be contrary, but oil is being produced from molten magma in Fumeroles deep in the Ocean Floor. Deep diving bathyspheres found petroleum products bubbling up out of fissures 12000 to 24000 feet deep.They are likely being generated in situ through a Fischer-Tropp reaction.
Then the newly formed oil under pressure seeps through cracks and fissures in the crust up into voids we call oil fields..No it doesn't.
Texas fields that were pumped empty back in the 70's and capped have been reopened and found to contain new oil. So the earth is renewing itself as we speak.A handful of fields have been recharged from (identified) deeper reservoirs along fault planes. No magic. No abiogenic petroleum.

[Billy T]

Not to be contrary, but oil is being produced from molten magma in Fumeroles deep in the Ocean Floor. Deep diving bathyspheres found petroleum products bubbling up out of fissures 12000 to 24000 feet deep. Tremendous heat and pressure is actually cracking the molten minerals into liquid crude oil. Then the newly formed oil under pressure seeps through cracks and fissures in the crust up into voids we call oil fields. Texas fields that were pumped empty back in the 70's and capped have been reopened and found to contain new oil. So the earth is renewing itself as we speak.Your first post, I see. Welcome back OilisMastery. Times are tough - down right depressing. We can use a few laughs.

[The Esotericist]

I'm not sure what to think about this topic. I'm inclined to agree with both OilIsMastery, and skycaptain. From what I've seen and read, I really do believe there has been either a colossal error in American geological thinking, or one hell of a conspiracy hoisted upon the Anglo-American public.

Go here, read the Academic papers, listen to the NPR interview with J. F. Kenney. Maybe it's just because I have a very open mind. But I think any rational person can listen to the NPR interview and view these scientific papers and come to the conclusion it's quite possible that our (the American) oil industry is anything but a joke compared to the Russian Oil industry. Do they have more territory? Sure, but I think they just know more and have a better understanding of hydrocarbon geology too. They produce more and are looking in areas that our science concluded decades ago wouldn't, and couldn't possibly produce oil.

http://www.gasresources.net/

NPR Interview (http://www.gasresources.net/Kenney-NPR.mp3)

:shrug:

On the other hand, I agree with Syzygys, it doesn't really matter, if it is abiotic. If the Russian method for finding oil, and the manner in which it is said to be formed turns out to be proved correct, it only is a matter if additional oil capacity being brought on-line quickly enough, and that's an additional progression scenario.

Population growth, Energy Use? Its a geometrical progression. It's a matter of compounding, and our ability to exploit a resource with diminishing returns, as the planets population grows as does it's geometrically increasing need for energy use. I still see a problem either way. I think a green economy, energy efficiency and. . . . other solutions are in our future.

[The Esotericist]

Incidentally, for users of Sciforums, you all should get a chuckle out of this essay. From the abiotic oil site, an essay on "Junk Science" Apparently that's what the biotic oil theory is? lol

Science & Junk-science: (http://www.gasresources.net/Science_JunkScience.htm)

[iceaura]

Deep diving bathyspheres found petroleum products bubbling up out of fissures 12000 to 24000 feet deep. Tremendous heat and pressure is actually cracking the molten minerals into liquid crude oil. There is a big difference between "petroleum products" and crude oil. And "cracking the molten minerals" is not a reasonable description of how "petroleum products" would be formed from magma.
Incidentally, for users of Sciforums, you all should get a chuckle out of this essay. From the abiotic oil site, an essay on "Junk Science" Apparently that's what the biotic oil theory is? lol The first and most enduring chuckle I got out of that essay was its self-display of most of the features of junk science promulgation - beginning with a quote from a famous name "authority" (an astronomer with little relevant expertise) and littering the prose with other famous names more or less irrelevant (including the tangential political swipes calculated to appeal to its audience - Marxist economics is "junk science"?), featuring derision and heated language, presenting long-outdated research and dressing its simple argument in the jargon of these superseded reports, and so forth.

There used to be a frequently cited essay providing a scoring system for these kinds of claims - so many points for any mention of "Feynman" or "Einstein", so many points for referring to the established body of experts in the field as having overlooked or misunderstood major findings of long ago, etc. That essay would score fairly high - not at the top, as it does not claim a conspiracy of the academically powerful to oppress the author and deny him his rightful glory, does not present claims of its own that contradict well-established laws of physics, or the like, - but kind of up there.

btw: There's a side influence on Russian abiotic oil theory - in earlier times, and not that long ago, it was necessary for Russian scientists to avoid aligning their theories with Darwinian evolutionary theory. Biotic origin of vast oil deposits was a bit too suggestive of Darwin, in its description of earlier eras, and abiotic explanations more congenial to old Soviet political thought.

[CptBork]

Not to be contrary, but oil is being produced from molten magma in Fumeroles deep in the Ocean Floor. Deep diving bathyspheres found petroleum products bubbling up out of fissures 12000 to 24000 feet deep. Tremendous heat and pressure is actually cracking the molten minerals into liquid crude oil.

I don't see how this statement makes any sense. If you're talking about minerals in general like metals and salts and stuff, converting minerals into oil would involve nuclear reactions causing elements to transmute, which as I'm sure you know only occurs under very exceptional circumstances.

[quadraphonics]

There used to be a frequently cited essay providing a scoring system for these kinds of claims - so many points for any mention of "Feynman" or "Einstein", so many points for referring to the established body of experts in the field as having overlooked or misunderstood major findings of long ago, etc.

Ah, I believe you're referring to the Crackpot Index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html).

[CheskiChips]

Where does Bill Clinton fall on the crackpot index?

[Billy T]

Where does Bill Clinton fall on the crackpot index?Not very high up - few Rhodes Scholars do.

[Billy T]

...btw: There's a side influence on Russian a biotic oil theory - in earlier times, and not that long ago, it was necessary for Russian scientists to avoid aligning their theories with Darwinian evolutionary theory. Biotic origin of vast oil deposits was a bit too suggestive of Darwin, in its description of earlier eras, and a biotic explanations more congenial to old Soviet political thought.There was strong political pressure to denounce biotic oil and support the A-biotic origin, but not for the reason you suggest. If anything Russian scientists were strongly encouraged to support Darwinian Theory as Russia/ USSR or CCCP/ was officially atheistic and anything that made "God the Creator” look silly was encouraged. Darwin helped justify the closing of Orthodox Catholic churches teaching falsehoods or if allow to remain open, staffing them with KGB "priests" to hear confessionals.

The correct reason is the communistic ideology stated that environment dominates nature. Plants, if give the correct communal farm environment, fertilizer, water, etc. need not have good seeds to grow from. - An idea that nearly starved Russia.

When applied to man, this idea was that man could be shaped by proper education to not be self-interested and greedy, but willing and glad to work for the good of all (Read the Russian state) as embodied in Lenin's edit: “From each according to his abilites and to each according to his needs."

Well they were realistic enough to know greed and self-interest would not disapear even in one generation while they were making the "New Soviet Man." And it would not be the inevitable path of history to the great and glosious Soviet future if peak oil were true.

Peak oil was a capitalist invention to drive up the price of oil and false. If you were a scientist and did not want you lab to be a cell in Siberia, you had better agree.

[Syzygys]

Peak oil was a capitalist invention to drive up the price of oil and false.

Billy, get real.

1. The theory has been known for decades, when oil price was cheap and stagnant.

2. Oilprices fell 70% from the high, how come? theory or no theory.

Everything nonreplenishable will run out sooner or later. There is peak coal, peak uranium, gold, whatever you name...

[Billy T]

... There's a side influence on Russian a biotic oil theory - in earlier times, and not that long ago, it was necessary for Russian scientists to avoid aligning their theories with Darwinian evolutionary theory. ...Billy, get real. 1. The theory has been known for decades, when oil price was cheap and stagnant. ...I did not say otherwise. I said that The CCCP's dogma was that peak oil was false - a capitalist story to help hold up prices. I don't need to "get real" You both need to read more carefully. If you still think the Atheistic CCCP was anti-Darwin, pro "God the Creator", you need to "get real."

Syzygys - You are quoting me out of context - Yes that is in my post but NOT as my POV that was the CCCP's POV as my whole post makes clear. BTW, I have had lunch with Hubble - he gave a talk at APL many years ago and I was one of the eight or ten asked to the pre-colluvium lunch with him as at that time not many at APL were interested and knowledgeable about the coming energy problem - I even had patents in the area. I don't recall exactly when that was, but the oil price was about $10/ barrel and no one was much interested in my patents. (I only own one of them - interest was so low that the Navy did not want to pay to patent it.)

[Syzygys]

Syzygys - You are quoting me out of context

OK, my bad. I was a little bit surprized that you would say something like that, but I was also watching TV. Anyhow, I still made a point against that argument.

This thread has reached its end really...

[science man]

I agree with the statement in this topic which is that oil's origin is irrelevent because we need to find a renewable energy source. Personally I prefer sunlight because it is the most powerful and renewable.

[zaroia]

Surely Fred Hoyle certainly is entirely correct when he said that:

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from
some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus
is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial
numbers of persons over an extended period of time."

[zaroia]

OilIsMasterry is entirely right!

[James R]

From memory, OIlIsMastery wimped out of debating the point.

[Buffalo Roam]

From memory, OIlIsMastery wimped out of debating the point.

Wimped out? really, and you banned Him why? Because you deemed Him a troll.

[Syzygys]

This thread should be locked, otherwise OIM will keep making new aliases. The debate has ran its course...

[Billy T]

"... Investments in new capacity are still sufficient to compensate production decline in peaked fields in OPEC. Another way to tabulate this is through total OPEC production capacity, calculated by adding estimated spare capacity on top of monthly production. Using EIA figures this gives the following annual increase in OPEC total production capacity and year on year changes:

OPEC Capacity in ...2002 … 2003 … 2004 … 2005 …2006 … 2007 …2008 … 2009*
Total million b/d …31.42 …32.55…. 34.54… 35.97.. 36.20 …36.50 ..37.23 …37.51
YoY change: …….....…………1130 ….1985 …..1430 …..235 …..294 .….733…… 280
*From January to October 2009

The slow down from 2005 appears remarkable, but I would argue that spare capacity figures from 2002 to 2005 are incorrect, because the increase in production was caused by turning on the taps at existing fields. As new investments mainly compensated declining production, actual spare capacity was much higher, and net capacity additions from new fields was in a similar range as from 2005 to present. In the coming years to 2012 higher additions to OPEC capacity are to be expected, based on current projects, in comparison to increases between 2004 and 2008. Hence if decline continue at the same rate as before, OPEC capacity will increase significantly. If at the same time demand increases only at a sluggish rate, a glut of capacity lasting beyond a couple of years occurs, driving down oil prices to near OPEC production cost levels. The end result may be that we hit peak oil production capacity somewhere early to mid next decade* because of ensuing underinvestment, but that the effects will only become apparent several years after capacity peak due to low economic growth. ..."

From: Oil Watch Nov 2009, a monthly free report. Get it via www.theoildrum.com

------------
* This ~2015 "OPEC peak oil" is assuming that the US & EU economies recover and demand for oil is increasing; However, If my prediction that US and EU are in deep depression by Halloween 2014 is correct then OPEC peak oil will not occur before 2020 at the earliest. As production from the deep off shore field will be much more expensive, they will not be producing much until after the cheap Mid East oil is well past "Peak Oil."

This is why I sold my shares of PetroBras about a year ago, at near the all time peak. In the first months after the size of Brazil's "pre-salt" deposit was recognized, with some wild estimates on the high side ("greater than the Saudi fields"), I sold out as I understood how costly it would be to produce.

One problem that is now being experienced in the intitial explorator wells is that the oil is very hot and it has considerable wax content. When it enters the ocean transit pipe on it way to the surface, it loses heat to the ocean water and wax solidifies on the inner walls of the pipe. Another is that the CO2 content is at least twice normal - They may not be alowed to just vent it. That will add to the production cost.

[Ophiolite]

Surely Fred Hoyle certainly is entirely correct when he said that:

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from
some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus
is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial
numbers of persons over an extended period of time."I greatly admired Sir Fred. Only a man who could be so brilliantly right some of the time could possibly get it so horribly and publicly wrong the rest of the time.

[James R]

This thread is no longer relevant. The debate didn't even take place.