# Oil Crisis

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by ck27, Oct 17, 2004.

Not open for further replies.

Messages:
102

3. ### GodlessObjectivist MindRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,197
The notion of a "coming oil shortage" has been around for decades. I remember the lines at the gas pumps in 1973-74 all too clearly, because I had just gotten my driver's license. The economic wise men of the time made dire predictions. If they had been right, the world's oil supply would have been long gone by now.

Still, the notion persists as strongly as ever in some quarters. A professor at Princeton published a book in 2002 with "Impending World Oil Shortage" in the title, which was favorably reviewed in all the right places. The price fluctuations over the past year have only fed the beast.

Now, I could give you my opinion of all this, but it's probably better to stick with the facts, to wit: There is no shortage of oil. There will be no shortage of oil. Not now, not next year, not in 50 or 100 years.http://www.elliottwave.com/features/default.aspx?cat=mw&aid=1466&time=pm

Beware the 'Peak Oil' Agenda

small secment:
"Though the "Peak Oil" scam currently being peddled by Mike Ruppert and others has absolutely no validity in global terms, it does make sense if viewed as deliberate Wall Street propaganda. The world as a whole has massive oil reserves on tap, with more continuing to flow from up from the earth's mantle, but American oil reserves cannot at present meet American demand, due primarily to a lack of investment in new domestic oil drilling and production infrastructure. Thus when Ruppert and others claim "The world is running out of oil", the accurate underlying truth of the matter is that "America alone is running out of oil".

The same holds true for the parallel propaganda claim that "World oil production had peaked, and can no longer keep pace with global energy requirements". In reality world oil production as a whole has not peaked, but the world as a whole is no longer prepared to provide America with one out of every two gallons of gasoline it refines every day of every year, especially not on the strength of worthless Federal Reserve promissory notes. Therefore this particular piece of 'Peak Oil' propaganda can be interpreted as meaning, "The world is no longer prepared to keep pace with, or provide, America's excessive energy requirements."..http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowan70newsletter12oct04.shtml

The abiotic oil debate and "peak oil"
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

Well that's all for now folkes! Doomsday is not tomorrow, nor anytime soon. So I have to get in my gas gusling SUV, and drive 60miles to work!.

!. *not really* lol..

Godless.

Last edited: Feb 4, 2005

5. ### Golgo 13The ProfessionalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
102
Your article is high on assertions and low on facts.

When oil companies are cutting and consolidating like they're living on borrowed time, it's a big sign of things to come.

If there's so much oil out there, then where is it? Discovery of the stuff peaked in the 60's and we've been depleting it at a 4 comsumed to 1 discovered ratio since then.The oil that powers economic activity is the lightsweet surface crude. This is what runs the global market. As this stuff diminishes, we will be facing issues.

I've posted a mountain of factual geologic data that clearly shows we're headed for a serious problem, but of you don't want to listen to it then I'm not going to force you.

What would it concievably take to convince you that there will be an oil crisis?

How many pieces of evidence concievably would have to be produced? Would the U.S. Department of Energy, the energy authority for the entire U.S., publically acknowledging peak oil as a reality be enough? Howabout the President of Saudi Arabia?

$5 a gallon gas?$7? What would it take? Or are you just beyond convincing, irrespective of the evidence?

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

The only counterpoint to peak oil so far, other than predictable denial, has been a small collection of Russian crank scientists that insist that all the knowledge on oil production is wrong. They believe that oil is an endless resource that is produced at the center of the Earth and comes up through the mantle and ultimately closer to the surface. They believe that oil is nonbiological in origin.

What I would really love to see proponents of abiotic oil theory explain away are biomarkers. Any attempt would be tantamount to trying to rationalize away guilt for murder when you have your bloody fingerprints on the weapon, your skin under the victim's fingernails, your hair on their garments, and your semen in their body. Everything we would expect to find if the parsimonious hypothesis that fits the evidence was true, and evidence that can't exist if the alternate theory was true. If any attempt to explain that is forthcoming, it will be apologetic ad-hoc ill contrived nonsense at best. Abiotic oil does exist, but it is in insignifigantly miniscule, noncommercially viable quantities, and the rate at which is produced hasn't shown to be any faster than biotic oil, which is around 20 million years.

Most of the time when people really dig into the chemical composition of crude oils, they find biomarkers. Things called hopanes and phytanes and such. These chemicals can be traced directly to, say, the lipids that make up cyanobacterial cell membranes (and only those membranes), or to the wax that coats the leaves of some extinct tree from Tasmania - and fossils of the same leaves are found 100 km away in coal of the same age.

The oil we've been using to power our world is a fossil fuel. While an indigenous origin has been proposed by several notable geologists, there are things that make this unlikely.

The first clue we find is, of course, that oil is carbon-based, much like life. The second is that nitrogen and porphyrins, found in living things, are found in many petroleum deposits as well. Porphyrins, FYI, cannot survive temperatures of more than around 200 degrees Celsius, common deep below the earth's surface.

A very important clue is the fact most oil occurs in or near sedimentary rocks of marine origin--if oil was leaking up from deep within the crust, we would expect most of it to occur in assorted rock near fault lines instead.

Coastal upwelling, a phenomenon associated with much of the hypothesized formation of organic oil, embeds larger amounts of phosphorus in the layers of dead marine plankton it creates, than the ocean at large. And what do we find in places like California and Montana, which were formerly coastal and possess oil deposits? Petroleum with much phosphorus content...

The carbon-12 / carbon-13 isotope ratio in oil deposits is a nice approximation to that in known living things.

Finally, and this is pretty much decisive, the molecular structure of hydrocarbons can often be directly linked to pigments, chlorophyll, leaf waxes, etc. of species that biology and paleontology tells us were dominant at those places during times when oil formed. (Source)

[Information about the various types of identifiable oil kerogens and the organisms they derive from]

This is not all of the evidence for a biological origin of oil, but it should be enough. Any of it can be explained with an appropriate ad-hoc rationalization, but this practice can weaken its explanatory power compared to the mainstream view.

Now, oil can be formed naturally. This is no secret to geologists. There are a few known examples of this phenomenon, most notably a few Russian oil fields. But this oil (1) tends to differ in identifiable ways from the usual variety, and (2) is by far miniscule compared to our oil needs and reservoirs of organic origin.

As in any other field, there have been other challenges to mainstream views on the formation of oil, with various levels of incompetency. Among the most hilarious are young-earth creationist claims that oil and coal are a result of Noah's flood. But these minority viewpoints are less successful when trying to predict which areas and/or rocks have most chance of yielding oil, the key test of any such hypothesis.

Peer-review in a prestigious journal does not entail accuracy; merely the lack of completely amateur scientific errors. And then, there have been rare examples of those in peer-reviewed journals, too.

Basically, the hypothesis that oil is formed abiotically:

• Cannot readily account for the geology or chemistry of known oil deposits, both of which render the indigenous origin implausible;
• Is true on a micro level, since small amounts of various hydrocarbons, and methane, are demonstrably formed by non-organic geologic processes;
• Does not match the predictive power of mainstream geology, which consistently and successfully tells us, in advance, which rocks are most likely to contain oil.

In other words, the fact that oil is produced by non-organic processes deep within the earth's crust in miniscule quantities is something no geologist will debate. Sure, they exist, but they are infintessimally minute and null for all practical intents and purposes reguarding future sustainability.

The theory of all petroleum being abiotic, or even a large quantity of it, is not well-established and is currently considered inferior to the mainstream view for obvious reasons. It's ideologically-sponsored and demonstrably "crank" science like many such "alternative theories" ("HIV doesn't cause AIDS," "global warming isn't happening," various forms of creationism, etc.). Confidently asserting commercial reserves of oil aren't fossil fuels is as ridiculous as it gets.

The "Abiotic Oil" Controversy

Richard Heinberg explains why this theory is nonsense at best, delusional thinking at worse.

Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?

Professor of Chemistry Ugo Bardi offers a simple assessment of the abiotic theory. His logic is so clear, and the culmination of his argument is so cogent, that even a child could understand it. The conclusion is inescapable one to any honest enquiry - abiotic theory is false, or at best irrelevant.

So lets recap. So far we've seen mega mergers and buyouts (it's easier to buy/merge with another company than it is to expore for oil since you will likely not find anything), a growing deficit between discovery and consumption, fewer and fewer megaprojects, OPEC having 0 spare capacity, Ghawar, the largest field in the world, pumping up over half water and entering terminal decline, the energy advisor to the President warning us about this, The US DoE putting out a 45 page report, and scads of retured (and thus disinterested from the petroleum industry) independent petroleum geologists telling us this is coming along with the former VP of Saudi oil giant Aramco (who is also disintrested since he's retired) saying the US has dangerously overestimated Saudi reserves. We also see suprious revisions during the OPEC quota wars, and the IEA warning all governments that they must accept Peak Oil as a reality.

So we have a concensus amongst the foremost authorities when it comes to energy, and the naysayers being a fringe minority that is grasping at straws.

That situation in itself is rather telling.

But don't take my word for it. When we're back to fuel rationing and outrageous prices, just remember They told you so. Of course by that time it will have been far too late to make preemptive preparations.

Savvy investors are obviously in-tune with what is going on. Here is a snipet from a Forbes newsletter:

Incidentally, it screams of the investment oppurtunities of peak oil and natural gas.

- Forbes

In order for this 'peak oil is a myth' theory to make any sense, we would have to believe that all of the worlds major authorities on energy have collectively collaborated to create a false epidemic, falsify all geological data, and deliberately stop all oil companies from producing oil or discovering the stuff while forging documents that they have been drilling dry holes during exploration. Furthermore, not one person inside the thing has come forward to blow the whistle and expose how all geologic data is fraudulent and no reliable oil figures exist due to this international worldwide conspiracy network affecting all aspects of the petroleum sector.

If you'll buy that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Last edited: Feb 4, 2005

7. ### KarmashockThe DoomslayerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
390
We have well over a hundred years of proven reserves and thousands of years of coal to fall back on. Coal might sound like a strange thing to cite, but you can make good fuel out of coal via a process called Gasification or liquification... anyway, it just takes coal, water, and energy... and you can make gasoline. The south africans have been doing it for ages.

The world is in no danger of running out of energy in the near future, though the competition for that energy will continue.

8. ### Golgo 13The ProfessionalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
102

- Excerpts from "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy" (Video | Webpage) by Dr. Albert Bartlett.

I highly recommend checking out the video. It's a really enlightening revelation on how sustained growth is unsustainable.

9. ### KarmashockThe DoomslayerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
390
Your figures are based largely on theoretical growth and technology estimates, which have a history of almost never being right.

As to the doomsaying, I have only to point at how many times none of this stuff has come to pass.

Mass global starvation? Nope
Massive global over population? Nope
Global cooling? Nope
Y2K Bug causes massive havoc?: Nope
Global Warming? We'll see
World energy supplies being cut off sharply and causing mass chaos? We'll see..

forgive me if I'm skeptical. Doomsayers have a pathetic record with this stuff. No offense to you and I say this with all due humility.

I’d rather have some straight links to sources that have more then one or two people backing them up.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

10. ### Golgo 13The ProfessionalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
102
It's based on flat growth, assumes that consumption of resources won't experience a growth rate any higher than what it's at, and derives it's figures appropriately while erring on the side of the cornicopians by assuming no increased growth.

You can't lump all disaster scenarios together, treat them all as equals, and say since they didn't happen or weren't as bad as the worst case scenarios depicted, then all other scenarios will be trivial as well.

For instance, Y2K and Peak Oil aren in no way related. Y2K was a problem with computers that was prepared for well in advanced and could be fixed by a bunch of caffeine-consuming coders rewriting lines of code. Peak Oil is an issue that can't be fixed with software, isn't being addressed politically much less prepared for, and has drastically worse repercussions.

What, like a medley of people all lumped in to a single source? Well there is the ASPO and ODAC which are entire organizations and you can read the World Energy Outlook reports.

Matthew Simmons, energy advisor to the President. Largest energy investment banker in the world. Internationally recognized world energy authority.

Princeton University's Peak Oil site

Presentation at the Technical University of Clausthal by C.J.Campbell

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO)

The Oil Depletion Analysis Center (ODAC)

Energy Bulletin

Hubbert Peak of Oil Production

Peak Oil Center

The Post Carbon Institute

Don't take my word for it. Go ahead and check it out for yourself. Feel free to explore the issue. No amount of distortion is going to change the facts. There will come a time soon enough where what we want to convince ourselves of and would idealistically believe slams into the unfogiving cold-steel meathook that is reality.

Even former Halliburton CEO and Vice President Dick Cheney knows the problem and said in a speech in 1999 that around 2010 the world would have to produce an additional 50 million barrels a day to meet oil-demand. We don't have that kind of capacity, especially since the President of OPEC came out and confessed that there was no additional supply.

This is the analysis of the most professional people in the field and the industry leaders. As far as academia goes, it doesn't get any higher than this. Nothing can be done for those that refuse to listen to the people that run the energy field and publish the geological data, though. If they want to believe that the entire energy apparatus doesn't know what it's doing, then they can't be helped. When the people responsible with providing you with your energy are stressing the point that they're not going to be able to keep it up, the issue becomes irrefutable.

The science of this is unimpeachable because it's coming directly from the people that run and manage our energy infastructure. Denial of the issue has been the most predictable and abundant response so far, but it is a luxury that the world can no longer afford, and so the issue has become more public.

Last edited: Feb 5, 2005
11. ### KarmashockThe DoomslayerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
390
Sweet... this one is pretty close to us. So can see this sooner rather then later

12. ### GodlessObjectivist MindRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,197
LOL!! Those same Russian crank scientists had Sputnick flying through space way the hell before the retards in the US could put anything up there. Furthermore those same Russian crank scientist have had a working space station in space for decades, while just curently our retards here at home are trying to build their own. THUS!! the moral of my insinuations; Don't ever understemate Russian scientists!.

Perhaps this site can bring some BIG! details on the abiotic fuel controversy; http://www.nutech2000.com/webtext/forum/oilhoax.html

and another; http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/oil.htm

Now just a tad bit of freaking common sense;

Lets say for example you are right, and oil does come from fossils sources. Just how many dinos would it take to produce million barrels of oil? We have dug up literally billions of barrels since the inception of oil exploration, I think that we have here an absurd idea to believe that there might have been trillions of dinos roaming the earth to leave all this fuel. It is a fact; however to leave many doubts conserning the exploration of oil, that we find it through fossil evidence, thus jumping to the rationalization that perhaps oil is a fossil by product, however this is only a rationalization and perhaps it's time to figure out the correct origins of oil with an open mind, and take the fossil rationalization out of the equation. Has this makes no freaking sense, do to the amount of oil we dug up since inception.

This debate kind of reminds me of how it must of been in the middle ages; when the geocentric and heliocentric debate took place, back then the simple and "rationalized" observation was the model of geocentricism, and if thought of any different it was herasey to speak of it, with anyone in the clergy; unless you wanted to face criminal accusations. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec02.html

Godless.

13. ### Golgo 13The ProfessionalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
102
Okay, obviously you know very little of fossil fuels. Only a small portion of oil comes from actual dinosaurs and prehistoric critters. Most of it is plant mass. When you have an entire rainforest that gets buried underneath another tectonic plate during a huge plate shift, that's going to create quite alot of oil way down the line.

If you dig into the compositions of oil, you also find biomarkers such as leaf tannins, which I covered in-depth previously, that are properties of biological structures exclusively.

But even if we indulge in this fantasy and declare all oil abiotic, it does nothing to solve the problem of it's depletion. We still have plenty of dry holes in the U.S. that have been depleted for over half a century, and they're just as dead as the day we killed them. It takes to the tune of 25 million years and the right conditions for oil to form naturally.

"Supplies of oil may be inexhaustible".

...

What the hell are these people smoking?!?. No respectable petroleum geologist would possibly believe some bullshit like that when the facts are directly contrary to it.

Isotopic evidence provides a clear link to the organic origins. No one in the industry gives the slightest credence to these theories: after drilling for 150 years they know a bit about it. Another misleading idea is about oilfields being refilled. Some are, but the oil simply is leaking in from a deeper accumulation.

- Campbell

We're consuming 4 barrels of oil for every 1 we find and more and more fields are in or approaching terminal decline rates. We have dropped down to this from the days where oil was so plentiful it was cheaper than water, and it's getting worse. The deficit of consumption/discovery is getting wider and wider. You do the math.

"Unexplainable Reports - www.davidicke.com, sent in by Delrio"

OMG dude you have got to be shitting me. David Icke? David "Bush is a shapeshifting reptiloid alien with a secret ectotherm lair beneath the whitehouse" fucking Icke? C'mon man! He's a fringe lunatic tinfoil-hat variety conspiracy theorist! Just look at this shit: Reptilian Agenda

The scientists were the ones challenging geocentricism, and they were persecuted by the Church as heretecs. Why? Because it was contrary to their vaunted infallible religious doctrine.

Here's an excellent point brought up about the abiotic oil issue:

A Challenge to the Flat-Earth, Abiotic Oil Advocates and Cornucopian Economists - It's Now or Never

Incidentally, I don't see any of these abiotic oil advocates scrambling to buy up these long-depleted oil fields.

It's pretty damned obvious that consuming more than you find by a 4:1 ratio will catch up to you.

Why are you grasping at lunatic fringe nutjobs as opposed to the scientific consensus?

If you guys won't concede that oil is depleting, which is indicated in the vast majority of studies and inquiry, I sure as hell won't waste any more time arguing it anymore.

No one is saying we're going to run dry overnight, but the problem exists and is a clear and present danger. No one can make you accept facts.

Last edited: Feb 5, 2005
14. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
Godless,
Golgo13 was somewhat harsh to characterise the Russian scientists as cranks, but do recall that Russian genetics were set back a couple of generations by adherence to a Lamarkian view. (Also, it wasn't Russian scientists who put up sputnik and a working space station, it was Russian engineers.)
There is some evidence that is suggestive of the elimination of methane from the mantle. It is marginal evidence. Even if it describes a truth it does not provide a rate that is sufficient to replenish oil stocks over historical time frames. So, if true, a thousand year from now we can re-enter all these old wells and begin producing again, but not next week, next year, or next century.
What may get us off the hook this time (and humans seem to have a knack for wriggling out of the tight spots) is methane hydrates. The total energy value locked up in these may be as much as two orders of magnitude greater than all the oil, gas and tar sand resources produced to date or producible in the future. That's a pretty solid solution to the 'coming oil crisis' right there!

15. ### GodlessObjectivist MindRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,197
G13, I've not claimed that eventually we will not run out of oil, however I do claim that we will not run out of oil within our life span, nor the children of this generation. What you are forgetting and give little credit to is human inovation, to solve problems. No matter if oil's origin be aibiotic, or focil, I understand that it'll eventually run out, before it can naturally "reproduce" again.

However I also understand that if a carburator of an automobile gave me 600miles to the gallon the price of Gas would be about $35 a gallon, but if an alternative fuel came along that would burn clean, not harmfull to the enviorement and bountifull as water, the price of gas would drop like a rocket, and become worthless merely overnight. These fucking oil corporations, kill, mained, buy off, sometimes with government influence any alternative fuel source that may come along in guantity to hurt these sob's buisnesses, And you KNOW!!. That we in the past have come out with alternative fuel source, even out of corn, pig shit, and as Ophi has pointed out methane, wait!! that could be "pig shit" LOL.. Ophi; Engineerign is basically a science. To be an engineer one has to be educated very well in the workings of phisics, only with science were the engineer able to determine what kind of material could have withstand pressures, and so forth.. But thanks for correction anyway!. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Godless. 16. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member Messages: 2,471 Lamarckian genetics is not a closed issue for all of the gentic science industry, Here is a sample of off road excursions: " . . . cases were injuries or mutilations not initiated by the organism and hence do not qualify for Lamarckian inheritance. Despite the continuing controversy, the neo-Darwinists carried the day. The current consensus is that the environment cannot cause hereditary changes. So, shall we write the obituary of Lamarckian genetics? Let us not pull the trigger yet. Today’s heresy may be tomorrow’s accepted truth. Science, just like other disciplines, has its dogmas. Dogma, it is said, “is a fickle mistress in science”. The demolition of the central dogma of molecular biology (DNA--->RNA--> Protein) to account for the RNA initiated function of viruses is one example of the need for revision of dogmas. Lamarckian genetics may yet be revived if biological facts argue for it. [Here for moe Lamarckian views pro/con There are some, Stefan lanka for oe, who maintains reverse ansrip[tase is an intrinsic, necessary and natural DNA activity. The "central dogma" now washed from the slate must be interated wwith reverse transri[ptase as a constant parameter in bio-organic development in the dynamics of DNA processes. It would not be fruitfull to argue the merits of genetics of Lamarckian vs Neo-Darwinism. I only respond here to point out that the issue is alive. You may be correct, are correct, in stating that the current consensus is anti-Lamarckian. I spend most of my effort in this forum in the Science and Math Forum, primarily discussing Special Relativity Theory. Those supporting SRT are more apt to use "consensus" type reasoning in place of scientific reasoning. I I can hear their screaming at me from here) . When the SRTist do dabble in the science of SRT it is more a repetition of theoretical dogma, and axioms, both pure mental constructs listed in text books 1, 2 . . .n. Some in the bio-industry take the anti-Darwinian view that enough time hasn't passed in the most conservative estimates for the scope and variety of organisms to evolve to their present observed state from the "single" first ever organism. Starting in some gurgling ethereal pool way back then statistical conclusions, including simple intuitive statistical conclusions, simply do not encompass enough of that element we call time as justifiation or substantial support for the current consensus view. Some scientist argue hat given enough psossibilities and enough time anything and everthing can be explained statistically in the background of evolution. Therefore, anything observed pursuant to evolutionary limtations should not be considered as unbellevable. The is similar to the claim that from an infinite number of monkeys typing on Word 2000 word processors one would write the complete Shakespeare's Hamlet, The Prince of Denmark, typographical error free. The historical and gelogical records indicate evidence of acceleraed growth not only of organisms but of social organization. A best example is the step function rise of the Sumarian Society from near mere spear chuckers and berry pickers to a modern social-political-economic-religious structure sophisticated even by todays standards in a few short genertions. Conscious assistance and direction from some source is unambiguously mandated (conscious not miraculous) . Does not the the physiocal development of the humans, homo-sapiens, have an unexplained accelerated point just afew hundred thousan years ago? Some I am sure will disagree citing the consensus of some theoretical variance with my statement. Humans must care for their young in the early years as oppsoed to horses, for instance- new born colts. The newly born who are seen wobbling aound on skinny wet legs a few moments from birth and having developed running habits within hours of their birth. wWho cared for the first humans, wowlwves in teh hills? Evolving and learning child care in parallel with evolving attributes of the human development seems an unlikely proposition does it not?. This is just an example of rational objections to a significant part of mainstream evolutionary structure. I am not naming names here nor intentionally dissing on anyone's point of view, opinion or belief. My finger points not, thjouigh the finger writes and having writ does not miove on for with all your piety and wit ye may lure it back to cancel half a line. I am suggesting obvious alternatives to unscientific structures claiming they wear the exclusive robes of scientific validity and believability, what ever the fit those robes might be in any specific case. The evidence tells me humans had assistance in their early formative development.The scientific genetic interest, I argue, should not be in proving one or the other theory i.e. assistance vs unfettered neo-Darwinian evolution, but to take the safe road and scrutinize the possibilities leading to the rational identity and nature of that assistance and let the buffalo chips fall where they may. Defending one or another structure of scientific discipline on the basis of conclusion, belief and dogma, consensus and robotic thinking is immoral. Natural and periodic accelerations of development including morphic imperative variations are not consistenlty observed as evolutionary law, much less as factual occurance. When the natural acceleratied scenario is applied is it not always as an explanation of otherwise inexplicable variation of the slow methodical Lylelian (sic) model? Geistkiesel 17. ### KarmashockThe DoomslayerRegistered Senior Member Messages: 390 So is this a lie? Because it seems that only one of you can be right and neither of you are giving allowance for unknowns. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006228 18. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member Messages: 2,471 Whoops, got carried away from the oil crisis. Let me repair my fixation on evolution. The oil crisis of the early sevemties I also remember. One day while waiting about tenth in a twenty car line in fronty of a 3-4 rows of pumps with two lanes per row of pumps and two carsw per lane I approached the owner/manger of the local ALameda, California Chevron station and aswked if he had enough gas for all the cars in line. He responded affirmatively, "Sure, I got enough for everybody". I asked then, "Well why don'tn you open up the other lanes of pumps so we don't have to sit here waiting to fuel up?' The owner repleed very forcfEully as if he had been insulted," have to have enough gas for my customers tomorrow" he nearly screamed in my face. All those lines of cas I saw on the tube, all the rhetoric, the odd/even licenses plate fill up days, rapid price increases, and no crisis of energy or oil supply ever existed in the the US, or on planet earth in the 70's oil crisis. During desert storm I was in Austin, Texas and asked one very familair with the "price of a barrel of oil" , then around$20/barrel what the pice of oil would be if I just announced that 900 Kuwaiti oil wells had been ignited by Iraqi invaders on their way bck to Iraq? "At least $35 to$40" was his erspnse, "probably miore". When the fires were reported, for sure the price went up to $35 for a day, then back to a normal$20/ barrel. There was plenty of oil for all purposes. The crisis was a well planned and executed sham.

Now we were told that a major factor in the recent rise in oil prices was due to a ruptured Iraqi pipe line (sabotaged by terrorists of course). This was the (major) reason announced for the current oil shortage and high pump prices.

Bull shit.

All that economic out pouring abut available supplies, running out etc is totally usless information without the included element of greed and massive violations of laws regulating monopolisitc practices and intirinsic corruption of the oil industry. Who can believe what their governmenet tells them about "fuel suplies"? What can we believe when given information from the oil industry?

OK so I appear paranoid and unfairly critical of my government, the very best government in the world that money can buy? There is none among the readers of this thread that have unedited information that verifies claims of the oil industry as supported by the current regimes. Deep felts beliefs do not substtue for factual demonstrations

So what if I am unfair? I am not making anything up, nor making broad unsupported or irrational speculations. The problem is of such a serious nature that the safest assumption and direction the people should take is to assume the worst case scenario, i.e. massive corruption in the government/industrial relationship. If we err then no harm no foul and the insult results in no damage to the system. If we apply corrective scrutiny of the worse case scenario, then we have more probable list of opportunities and options to mend the damage before it rises to a fatal level.

To adopt an "innocent until proved guilty" stance in the present case is silly. The concept of innocence until proved otherwise has its seminal and developed manifestation in the law and court system. Here the concept is and should be a clear and unambiguous tenet of the operation of law and the courts and jury system. To apply an "unchallenged innocence" to the economic political arena of our beloved country is suicidal. This especially true should we refrain from action because we have a naive and childish sense of fairness to the oil indistry and governemental brotherhood.

All we need do is demand an unconditional accounting of practices that determine the price of oil, from whatevr sources we discover those practices.

Oh dear mother, what wonders do await us under those waves of clover swayng from a cool zephyr in a may meadow.

Geistkiesel

Last edited: Feb 6, 2005
19. ### GodlessObjectivist MindRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,197
Karma, Geistkiesel, it's apreciative not to be the only one with the argument going agaist the "propaganda" of oil shortage *cough*! bull shit!.

Godless.

20. ### KarmashockThe DoomslayerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
390
I'm sorry, were you being sarcastic? I can't tell through the internet.

oh, if you were... that's rather childish of you to say the least. The very least you could have done would be to address these reasonable points with a little candor.

if you weren't being sarcastic, then I hope you realize that there are quite a few rude people about and it's hard to know when people are just being small minded f*ckwits.

21. ### TristanLeave your World BehindValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,358
I would like to make a small point. Everyone here keeps on going back and forth between "we have enough" and "we are running out".

Here are the facts, according to NOTHING BUT SIMPLE LOGIC.

There are around 6 billion people on earth (conservative number). The amount of oil we use is only used by a small fraction of these people since most people live in countries where they simply are too poor to afford "technology".
However, as time progresses, these countries will begin to use technology and use oil. You can expect to see the use of oil increase exponentially and the supply linearly at best (If and only if there are more supplies).

Other things to think about: Fusion. By 2010, the first prototype international fusion generator is expected to be completed. I believe its 1/3 scale. The U.S. pulled its funding of it a few years back to divert to "more important things".

Look guys, the facts are that if we ever plan to continue to live and prosper, we wont be using oil. Its a joke to think that in 100 years, oil will still be a major energy source.

22. ### KarmashockThe DoomslayerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
390
perhaps not, but gas is a great way to store energy for travel. For cars and planes it makes great sense. We can even make oil from coal if we need to.

As to the fusion reactor, we support the Japanese version over the EU version. This is because the Japanese one will be something we'll have a more active role in, while the EU is trying to prove something or other with theirs.

That's all that happened. The US and Japan are going to work on our version and the EU can work on it's version.

Love and peace, karmashock.

23. ### GodlessObjectivist MindRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,197
Jumping to conclusions rather quickly Karma; I sincerely ment what I said!.

We may not see eye to eye on many topics, however when the rare occasion arises that we do, around here "the point" of agreement is brought forth by either party.

Tristan; I think that the use of oil, will outlive most of us on these here boards, the whole thing is basically political, it was in the 70's and it is today, alternative fuels will be developed as soon as governments don't take pay off from oil corporate sob's, heck fuel can come from water if we were to apply our knowledge to develop it. http://www.keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html

This toy started begin my understanding of converting water to an energy source; my friend's son owned one of these; http://www.i4u.com/article1266.html

Godless