Proposal: The origins of oil is irrelevant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Syzygys

Syzygys

As a mother, I am telling you
Valued Senior Member
I would like to challenge OilIsMastery, Buffalo Roam and Madanthonywayne to join me for a debate not on the origins of oil, but its irrelevance...

Since they all subscribe to the abiotic oil theory, I will join them and agree that oil is continuously being replenished. Nevertheless I will debate them that it is pretty much irrelevant at the current rate of world's usage....
 
I don't understand what the debate is. Hydrocarbons are infinite and, as you admit, "continuously being replenished." In what way is that irrelevant?

"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

National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976
 
I will gladly debate this issue.

A summary of my argument:

Continuously can mean a whole range of rates of replenishment (assuming this happens at all, and the percieved effect is not simply the result of draining). If all the world's oil reserves filled through abiotic oil, then that means it took billions of years, and we know they are running out fast. If that is the case, then abiotic oil is irrelevent since we don't have billions of years to wait for refilling. Even if oil is biotic, the timescale of replenishment is not at all practical.

Let the battle begin! (not here, but in the appropriate thread)
 
I should have known...

OilIsMastery said:
I don't understand what the debate is. Hydrocarbons are infinite and, as you admit, "continuously being replenished." In what way is that irrelevant?
Click to expand...

The debate is about the rate of replenishment. Unless you can prove that it is a signifficantly few years, (let's say less than 50) I will prove it to you, that it is irrelevant because the current rate of usage is so fast, that your little replenishing oilwells don't have time to get refilled before we run out of it.

Somebody used the analogy of the hunting of the dodos into extinction, hey, that was me!!

I am not sure which side Spidergoat wants to be on, I am assuming on mine (the winning side), because he is saying the same as me.
 
OilIsMastery said:
What is the rate of replenishment?
Click to expand...

To stay at my favorite dodo analogy, if Mauritus had 100K birds and every year there were 2K new eggs, then not counting hunting and natural death the rate of replenishment for dodo was 2% per year.

OilIsMastery said:
Wrong. It doesn't take billions of years for oil to form.
Click to expand...

Cool! So did you just formally agree to the debate? Of course I expect you to show/prove a different number than millions of years. I will go with 500*, just for argument's sake...

* I can go as low as 150, because that's when the really big industrial usage started after Colonel Drake's Pennsylvania drill...and those wells are not replenishing, yet....
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
We do see wells refilling.
Click to expand...

Excellent! So you shouldn't have a problem calculating the rate of replenishment. Are you ready for the debate?

By the way, for the sake of the debate I am on your side and saying that oil needs 300 years (pulled it out of my ass) to replenish.(you know, like for a tree to grow big enough to be cut down) Unfortunatelly for us, this 300 years is still too long...
 
I think the proposal has failed, due to the lack of mental capacity of our potential opponent.
 
spidergoat said:
I think the proposal has failed, due to the lack of mental capacity of our potential opponent.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatelly, I tend to agree, but Buffalo Roam or MAW might jump in...

I will try one more time really slow:

OIM: I want you to show/prove what you think the replenishment rate for oil is. I came up with a random small number of 300 years, just to be on your side,agreeing that oil is abiotic. Then you ask me for proof. There is no proof, that is the point!

So again, how many years does the average oilwell need (according to your understanding) to get refilled as the oil is being continuously created??? Rather simple question, any abiotic fan should be able to answer it...
 
syzygys if this challange was to go ahead i would have sent you some infomation on the murry river to use as an example. Water IS a reuable resorce but the water in the murry has been so over alocated that its now almost compleatly dead as a system.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Yes. And they do. Eugene Island for example
Click to expand...

Already explained in post #30.

the depletion profile is adequately explained by replenishment from deeper reservoirs of normal biologically derived petroleum.

I wonder, can I challenge myself and argue for both sides???
 
Last edited:
Moderator note: 35 posts have been deleted.

Members are advised to review the rules for the Formal Debates forum.

In particular, remember that Proposal threads are to agree on who the debaters are to be, what is the topic of the debate, and by what rules the formal debate is to be conducted. The actual debate should occur once that has been agreed.

Therefore, all posts in this thread that have attempted to debate the topic rather than organise a Formal debate have been deleted.

---

On a personal note, I think this looks like an excellent subject for a formal debate.

Perhaps I could suggest a topic...

"That we will never run out of oil."

OilIsMastery will obviously argue the affirmative, since he believes in constant replenishment.

Now, who wants to argue the negative?

And what rules do you want? (You might like to start by reading the Standard Rules in the sticky thread at the top of the Formal Debates forum.)
 
Those posts were at least centred around a discussion of the arranging of a debate.

Would you like me to delete them?
 
Hey James, you went a bit heavy handed with te deletion. We were trying to explain to OIM what the debate is about, so the deletion was unnecessery. It just underlines my point of the subforum's rules as anal. In the debate with 4 responses only we wouldn't even have got this far, so these deleted parts were necessery.

So hold on your little finger next time, there is no harm having a discussion in the proposal thread. Otherwise this subforum will be just like I said it is, without activity and unneccessery...
 
Oilismastery is as big a hoax as peak oil is...well peaking.
Peaking like duck!
Beiging like a soiled arabian carpet
Yeah! serious, wake up mods!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top