A quick point on yet another claim of yours. The oil issues of the 70's were the result of an honest-to-god oil crisis. That was when the OPEC nations boycotted the U.S., western Europe, and Japan and gained OPEC it's infamy. There's no scam about that and it bears no relationship to the credibility of the peak oil theory. The reason all kinds of alternatives were becoming explored is because people felt the reality and immediacy of an oil crisis. It was no longer abstract. But as the boycott ended, prices lowered and people stopped taking a very real problem seriously and left alternatives at the wayside, where they remain today.
So the 70's analogy doesn't apply. Then this, which is related:
No one has ever claimed that Peak Oil would occur globally in the 70's. So that is untrue. It wasn't promoted before.
Only time will tell, but we can look back in time to see that it's not bloody likely due to the fact it's been promoted before.
Then then there is this..
If you search for "Exxon Mobil on Peak Oil", the second result you get is "ExxonMobil Says, "Peak Oil Is Fiction"". The first result you get is a pdf document published on Exxon Mobil's own web site that talks about why Exxon Mobil thinks peak oil is a myth.
The term is just another talking point used by the oil companies and it's repeated from there used to scare us into submission.
We can also look at where this theory is emanating from and consider a potential conflict of interest.
Or if you look for Shell Oil's opinion, one of the first pieces you get is this, an article where Shell claims oil will dominate for the next 100 years.
The oil companies want nothing to do with Peak Oil because it encourages alternative energies, it encourages people to brace themselves, conserve or look for alternatives in case there is a price hike. Besides being wrong, it wouldn't even make sense. Why would oil companies push a theory that tells everyone they should stop using oil? Why would they scare us away from oil? If they wanted us to buy it, wouldn't they tell us that everything is fine, there is plenty of oil and there is no need to change your lifestyle or look for an alternative source?
Just to emphasize this, I'm going to quote what you wrote again:
Now compare your statement with the statement of Exxon Mobil:
The term is just another talking point used by the oil companies and it's repeated from there used to scare us into submission.
The theory does not match reality, however. Oil is a finite resource, but because it is so incredibly large, a peak will not occur this year, next year, or for decades to come.
In other words, you claimed something that was, again, untrue. How am I supposed to take anything you say seriously?
I've paid more attention to this topic in the media of late while I was unable to post here and frustrated from the posts that disappeared and I listened to a guy this morning on GCN talking all the party line garbage we've seen here. That guy, Harry Braun http://www.harrybraunshow.com/, made a lot of sense, though, on another level and that is oil is destroying the planet's air, water, and all that. I've got asthma and this disease is epidemic in children today and I think it's due to burning all these hydrocarbon fuels mucking up the air. So what's the harm in spreading the lie that oil is near its end? In this case, since there really is no harm, I've decided that the means do in fact justify the ends. So go ahead and repeat the lie. Repeat it often enough that people believe it. You can ignore the facts such as studies like these conducted by:
J. F. Kenney, (JFK@alum.MIT.edu)
Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Parkway, fl. 5, Houston, TX 77060, Houston, U.S.A.
Russian Academy of Sciences - Joint Institute of Earth Physics, Bolshaya Gruzinskaya 10, 123.810 Moscow, Russia;
Vladimir A. Kutcherov
Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Leninski prospect 65, 117917 Moscow, Russia.
Nikolai A. Bendeliani, Vladimir A. Alekseev
Russian Academy of Sciences - Institute for High Pressure Physics, 142092 Troitsk, Moscow Region, Russia.
The study can be found here along with another study and lots of interesting information: http://www.gasresources.net/
Don't let your opponents see things like that though. We need to get off our addiction to oil and on to a H2/wind/solar economy. While I believe that would be very cool, I also believe they would never let the masses make our own energy. If they can't put a meter on it and charge us for it, they'll do everything in their power to make sure we can't have it. And the way our government is set up, they'll always have the power. We need to form a democracy and move away from this representative republic or something where the majority of the people determine the fate of our nation. So, I suppose this is pretty much the end of the argument for me unless something more interesting is brought forth by Glenstein or one of the other readers of the thread.
Awesome topic, btw. One of these days I'll have to start something like this one. Keep others posting here and if there's anything more I can add I will.
It seems to me that research from the guys you mentioned often makes use of charts and graphs. And in their own research, they consider their work a theory that they are still developing. Interestingly enough, Hubbert has correctly predicted several phenomina around the world with his theory and all oil wells follow the bell curve in output he predicted they would, just like global discovery of new wells follows the curve he predicted it would. The russians, by contrast, have had little direct research to accompany their theory.
Now there was someone in this thread who was very suspicious of theories, and of graphs and charts, but I'll let that person speak on their own behalf.
And a theory for anyone who doesn't know is: "A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." According to Oxford American Dictionary.
While a "Law" is an entirely other animal: "A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon if certain conditions are present: The second law of thermodynamics. Why do I bring this up? Because any schmuck can have theories, but a theory can be disproved, usually without too much effort, and when enough scrutiny has assailed said theory and it can stand up to the rigors of repeated experimentation it may then become law. Even Einstein still has theories that haven't yet stood the test of the scientific community i.e. Theory of Relativity. An honest resercher/scientist wouldn't be afraid of exposing their theories to the scrutiny of the scientific community let alone a meager forum like this one.
Maybe I should take that person's advice and distrust your Russian sources?
BTW: An economics professor once told me (and my class) that statistics lie. I'm not impressed with graphs and charts; they mean nothing to me because they're used to selectively promote some numbers from some source but not other numbers from other sources. Statistics are used to promote lies, often with success. The only way to disprove peak-oil is the same way to prove it: Wait. Only time will tell, but we can look back in time to see that it's not bloody likely due to the fact it's been promoted before. We can also look at where this theory is emanating from and consider a potential conflict of interest. It's like saying that maybe gun control will stop violence, but not likely because it's never worked in all the past events where citizens were disarmed then slaughtered. But let's try it again. This time will be different. I'm not willing to take that chance. I understand that peak-oil won't end with genocide, but the debate is the same: ignoring past experiences while trying to predict future events. I'm sure someone important once said, "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it." I'm sure you know who said that. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Someone else said that, don't recall who.
That whole study had all of four graphs that were immediately backed up with the date presented. You used five graphs in your rebuttals on some obscure forum without giving sources (and some guy's personal
It seems to me that research from the guys you mentioned often makes use of
website, now defunct, doesn't count nor lend credibility) for the numbers used to create them.
According to Oxford American Dictionary the definition of a law is: "A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present: the second law of thermodynamics." A theory from the same source is: "A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin's theory of evolution."
And in their own research, they consider their work a theory that they are still developing.
What's your point? Do you expect them to lie and say their studies' results are irrefutable / incontrovertible with no challenge from the greater scientific community? If you're insinuating that because the theory posited is "fringe" or unaccepted for whatever reason in the west then I'd simply ask how, if their theory is false, have they (Russia/U.S.S.R.) come from the brink to being the world's largest oil producer. Perhaps they're on to something over there in Siberia... No no no. I guess you know more than they do which explains why you're wasting hours of your time convincing me that I'm just an arrogant, fat, unemployed, bored know-it-all who's out to get you and your ego to make himself feel better about his cursed life. Oh, wait! I know. You're some rich oil exec working for BP and you've got some poor intern working for you and you've charged him with the task of defeating every little argument, making sure not even one forum in the whole internet has one of those "peak oil myth wackos" getting away with anything. Maybe you've got a room full of college grads earning their stripes scouring the internet posting the agenda everywhere they can. Yeah. That must be it.
Are you suggesting a simple bell curve was the result of research? Specifically the Hubbert curve? You'll have to show me all the research that Hubbert did to obtain this, one of the simplist of graphs in the world of graphing.
Interestingly enough, Hubbert has correctly predicted several phenomina around the world with his theory and all oil wells follow the bell curve in output he predicted they would, just like global discovery of new wells follows the curve he predicted it would. The Russians, by contrast, have had little direct research to accompany their theory.
I have more to add to this, and I will on the other computer tomorrow because it's got all the sources up on it and it's much more reliable when it comes to successfully making posts on this forum...
Now there was someone in this thread who was very suspicious of theories, and of graphs and charts, but I'll let that person speak on their own behalf. Maybe I should take that person's advice and distrust your Russian sources?
Strike that. I had to get on the Mac just to post this. Good thing I've got another computer to back me up. I doubt too many other people do. Anyway, I ran across a compelling article that brings something to light I haven't discussed here yet. So I'm going to quote the first two paragraphs to lure the audience in and they can then link to it:
"On June 21 , the Los Angeles Times ran a story that the ever-growing 'Peak Oil' crowd seems to have missed. The article concerned the Shell oil refinery in Bakersfield, California that is scheduled to be shut down on October 1 -- despite the fact that the state of California (and the nation as a whole) is already woefully lacking in refinery capacity.
Now why do you suppose that Shell would want to close a perfectly good oil refinery? It can't be because there is no market for the goods produced there, since that obviously isn't the case. And it isn't due to a lack of raw materials, since the refinery sits, as the Times noted, atop "prolific oil fields." The Scotsman recently explained just how prolific those fields are:"
The article can be found here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Scroll down a few paragraphs to the centered stars and read from there, though what's above the stars is interesting too. I guess supply and demand are responsible for the current price gouging at the pump. Haven't really heard this argument used in the media though. Funny how, when you close refineries down, even when they're extremely profitable, you'll make an even greater profit from the remaining refineries. It's good to be the king [of oil].
This is more than a little silly. I was quoting you, not because I believed one whit of what you were saying, I was mocking your doubt of theories. Of course a theory can still be meritable, I never said it couldn't, you did. And the points you bring up as you argue against your own quotes are fairly good points. Your points happen to reinforce the validity of Hubbert's Peak, also a theory, which you doubted for the same reasons that you now want me to believe the Russians.
It is a good point that an oil producer in Russia endorses those theories. Just like it's a good point that the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. congress believes in peak oil. If I said "oh those russians aren't trustworthy because they used to be commies and etc. etc." would you take it seriously? I hope not. But that's exactly what you said about our United States congress. But I can say that one theory is more accepted in the mainstream science community and that one is more dubious and obscure.
"A guys personal website" was actually using info quoted from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a fact mentioned on the page I link to for anyone to read, so nice try. And I told you specifically what every graph was measuring, so you could have easily doubled checked if you doubted what I was saying. If I link to the sources, it's only going through the motions. Surely you still believe that our global reserve estimates rising for some reason, right?
So if you have something substantive to say, I'll be happy to respond, but if you were honest you might at least acknowledge the several cases of hypocrisy on your part, but you won't. So it is likely that I am done here.
I guess we will be forced to find another ways to power up our cars. In my country they are currently developing diesel from oil used for cooking in restaurants. They say that any diesel car can use this but they didnt put it on public gas stations. the only one who can use it is anyone who works in that factory. They plan to use this diesel for public transportation but they dont know will it work because buses are very old. if we ran out of oil we ll face the national problem! So the best way to prevent problem is to invest money in finding alternative sources which will change oil.
The funny thing about the whole oil exhaustion phase is that people are not going to do anything about it UNTIL they see in the newspapers or T.V that there will no longer be any oil. Then the panic to "hoard" oil would begin thus making the prices soar up higher than an eagle. Once that is done, people will see the importance of running electric cars or whatever. Every thing that exists in this world will go through a real rough period until every one has their own solar/electric cooker, solar/electric car, solar/electric powered appliances etc. Sure, people are working on making hydrogen the new fuel but considering the expenses, unless it gets cheaper and people find a way to transport the goods ( Remember ships and planes run on fuel). Overall I feel that instead of bickering about graphs, statistics and playing the blame game we should do our best in using the sources as they are needed instead of being lavish.The only good thing about the end of oil is that even though the whole world would come to a standstill, it would be the final step Mother Nature would take to stop us from destroying the Earth.
There will always be alternative ways to replace oil dependence. One of the most popular I think is Hydrogen source. I have been listening to lots of predictions about oil resources, but nothing is sure. One thing is sure, that population is growing while the earth on a while won't be able to fill the needs of all humans. This will lead people to becoming eager toward each other for seeking the goods of this world.
Oil will not run out because of prices. People will pay $62.52 today for a barrel of crude oil, but will they pay $1000? At that point, other options would be much more efficient, thus society will switch to them when they become a better option than oil. There's no need to push inefficient fuel sources at the moment.
Ah, but life is resilient. Moving to other planets, to other solar systems, to other galaxies. It will happen in the future. And if not us, then some other life form.
The only good thing about the end of oil is that even though the whole world would come to a standstill, it would be the final step Mother Nature would take to stop us from destroying the Earth.
The Greasecar Vegetable Oil Conversion System is an auxiliary fuel modification system that allows diesel vehicles to run on straight vegetable oil (SVO) in any climate.
You can run any diesel car or truck on vegetable oil
What if you could refuel your car at a restaurant instead of a gas station? Some enterprising environmentalists have discovered that restaurants will gladly give away their used fryer oil, since they usually have to pay to dispose of it. This oil can be filtered and used to run cars and trucks that have been converted to run on vegetable oil. Your exhaust might smell like fries (no joke), but you?ll be recycling, emitting up to 70% less CO2, and saving yourself some money.
check it out, never pay for gas again!
Have you heard about fuel cells? It is touted to be the winner the race to replace oil/gas/petrol/diesel used to run vehicles. And unlike other contenders, it does offer good speed along with conserving energy.
A heavy bus running with a fuel cell could manage to clock 100 miles per hour. Now that's something! The only thing it emits is water vapour, which doesn't harm anyone. Now doesn't this sound like a cool thing?
Coming back to oil, I really don't think there will be much of a problem, because oil may never really run out. There will be a time in the future when even the most careless person on the planet will realise that oil needs to be conserved in order to survive. At that time, the human race will finally learn how to preserve the oil resources and hopefully, create another alternative, using oil in the meantime.
Here's what will happen if we run out of oil:If we are not ready and are still dependent on oil, everything would shut down and the world would go into chaos because there's no fuel left.If we have an alternative energy source by then, nothing significant will happen to us.Hopefully, we will be using alternative energy before we run out of oil. Besides the threat of Global Climate Change, running out of oil will severely hurt us in and of itself. And the scary thing is we're almost out. It won't be very long before we run out. And if we do, it may get us into the third world war.So a message to all those who are against preventing Global Climate Change: If we allow the oil supply to run out, we will surely hurt ourselves. We can only survive if we switch from oil to some alternative before the oil supply runs out; if we don't, all countries still using oil will crumble. That means the United States.
The only way, is to adapt to a world without oil.Solar Panel technology will have to soar to compensate to normal family incomes. Cars will be a thing of the past, bring on public transport or bikes [manual bikes btw].Or unless we figure out space travel and find another source of fuel, *cough* Venus Ore
The only way, is to adapt to a world without oil.
Solar Panel technology will have to soar to compensate to normal family incomes. Cars will be a thing of the past, bring on public transport or bikes [manual bikes btw].
Or unless we figure out space travel and find another source of fuel, *cough* Venus Ore
Many alternatives had been mooted. Electric car, Hybrid car, etc etc. Non of them have been able to fully replaced the petrol driven car. An example, in my country, thou, they are touted to be environmentally friendly, they din do much to promote a green car. In fact, it is more expensive to own a green car, not to mentioned the trouble that one will need to go through, just to top up the "fuel" that is needed.
I'm sure this will PO all those greenie weenies out there, but a fairly recent assessment by none other than the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in the Dakotas revealed that there is an untapped reservoir of some 3 to 4.3 Billion barrels of sweet crude under the region known as the Bakken formation located in the Eastern MT, ND, SD, and lower Alberta/ Saskatchewan region and it's virtually untapped. Peak oil, kiss my A$$! Here's the link: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
I guess I can drive my diesel Ford Excursion for a while more without worrying about running out of fuel.
War.. Big countries will do expansion to other countries which still have oil. They'll make any excuse, any reasons so that they can attack those small countries.
I guess new power sources will be found. A world without oil will be hard, also remember it will be good for the environment. My only worry is the new power source will probably be abused be the major government powers. ARGH DAMN lol
A new energy source will be found certainly. Some countries are already planning in invest on electric cars which also help the Planet but if we run out of oil, the crisis will increase and people will start to get mad, especially the government. Then the Earth would run out of money and financial issues would also increase.Just my thoughts.
I personally want to install magnetics in the current roads diagonally, and use magnetic polarization to travel. The diagonal is to maintain forward moment. NO MORE HEAD ON COLLISIONS.