What Will Really Happen When We Run Out Of Oil A take from someone who has waste a lot of time reading on this

[BuffaloHelp 24]

Trap17 forum encourages healthy topic discussions. However, if discussions cannot remain civil and ends up performing nothing but personal attacks, it's no better than not discussing at all.If any member cannot understand that this is the place for intellectual debates, I will have to ask you to refrain your point of view in our forum.Thank you.

[glenstein 0]

Xisto forum encourages healthy topic discussions. However, if discussions cannot remain civil and ends up performing nothing but personal attacks, it's no better than not discussing at all.
If any member cannot understand that this is the place for intellectual debates, I will have to ask you to refrain your point of view in our forum.

Thank you.

You are right. I did get very "into" my side but that's about as far as I am ever likely to go in terms of uncivil-ness. The only reason I didn't move on and simply not respond at all, was that I had invested a bit of time in my post that I didn't want to go to waste. But in the future I will be sure to just opt out of conversations if I know how uncivil/irrational they will be.

For now, thanks BuffaloHELP for appealing to decency and not banning, blocking this etc. It shows respect for the common sense of your members and is an approach I'll definitely honor by cooling off and backing away from this subject.
Edited January 31, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[Watermonkey 0]

I've just invested another couple hours on this topic if, for no other reason, to further educate myself on the dynamics involved with both sides of the debate. As I indicated in a prior post (if it survived the upgrade), there is a growing vocal group of people who are not buying the conventional wisdom. Much of that is due to the fact that our Russian brothers have concluded that there's an apparently inexhaustible supply of oil if you drill far enough. I'll list the links to the articles that I've perused these past two hours starting with Wikapedia who provides a thorough explanation of Hubbert's Theory of Peak Oil (Hubbert Peak Theory):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Followed by a couple articles written by a medical doctor:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley1.htm

And further reading in the general order it came up when Googled:

https://mises.org/library/myth-peak-oil

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.de/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Oct05/041005oil.htm

 

While doing a Google search and copying links takes but a couple minutes, reading all those articles will take hours. My aim in this post isn't to prove anything or even argue my side, but to give you an indication that even a cursory search of the internet will show 932,000 hits for "peak oil myth" and in at least the first two pages, there are only two or three links that aren't relevant to the search. The rest will make for informative reading. 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. There's some real eye-opening information in the above sampling. I'd suggest anyone with some time to spare read at least the first three or four links (excluding the entire Wikipedia write-up).

[glenstein 0]

I've just invested another couple hours on this topic if, for no other reason, to further educate myself on the dynamics involved with both sides of the debate. As I indicated in a prior post (if it survived the upgrade), there is a growing vocal group of people who are not buying the conventional wisdom. Much of that is due to the fact that our Russian brothers have concluded that there's an apparently inexhaustible supply of oil if you drill far enough. I'll list the links to the articles that I've perused these past two hours starting with Wikapedia who provides a thorough explanation of Hubbert's Theory of Peak Oil (Hubbert Peak Theory):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Followed by a couple articles written by a medical doctor:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley1.htm

And further reading in the general order it came up when Googled:

https://mises.org/library/myth-peak-oil

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.de/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Oct05/041005oil.htm

 

While doing a Google search and copying links takes but a couple minutes, reading all those articles will take hours. My aim in this post isn't to prove anything or even argue my side, but to give you an indication that even a cursory search of the internet will show 932,000 hits for "peak oil myth" and in at least the first two pages, there are only two or three links that aren't relevant to the search. The rest will make for informative reading. 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. There's some real eye-opening information in the above sampling. I'd suggest anyone with some time to spare read at least the first three or four links (excluding the entire Wikipedia write-up).

Thanks for the links. I make sure to read criticisms of peak oil and question myself consistently, so I'll look and see which of those add something new to what I know. I'm in the process of writing a pm with my last thoughts. But obviously, as you probably know, the number of google hits for something isn't always a great measure of how true it is. Perhaps a good measure of how much discussion there is on a subject, but it's not always a great measure of credibility. For instance, "the moon is made of cream cheese" gets 1,040,000 hits.

 

You again have several contestable points but rather than getting into that, I'll just emphasize Hubbert's curve was actually relatively obscure until it started getting proven right by real world events (like the peak of U.S. production in the 70's I previously mentioned). People arguing against peak oil, that is, arguing against the very idea that we will ever slow down in our production of oil have a bit more on their plate in terms of evidentiary burden now than Hubbert, who continues to be proven right as oil wells all around the world (including Eugene Island) follow the curve he predicted they would.

 

Update: If you turn on C-Span now you'll see Republican Roscoe Bartlett (I think that's his name), R-Maryland talking about Hubberts peak and the importance of energy indepedence.

 

Update: Wow this is amazing. If you are still here you should really turn on C-Span. He's citing a lot of people and sources I've been using here and his presentation couldn't be more relevant to the subject at hand than it is. Or you can go to the C-Span website which carries live feeds. All of this just goes to reinforce how undisputed and accepted the science on Hubbert's curve is. One of the big poster boards Bartlett displayed for all to see was a quote from our own U.S. Department of Energy which said:

 

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide.

That's what his poster said, but the same statement also has more explicit statements:

 

The date of world oil peaking is not known with certainty, complicating the decision-making process. A fundamental problem in predicting oil peaking is uncertain and politically biased oil reserves claims from many oil producing countries.

So ad the U.S. Congress and U.S. Department of Energy to groups that have been duped by the Peak Oil Myth.

Edited January 31, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[Watermonkey 0]

I doubt I've been clear on this: I'm not arguing that peak oil won't happen. There's nothing on this planet that I can think of that doesn't have a beginning and an end. Nothing is infinite, especially oil. My argument is that we've not yet reached this "peak oil" the mainstream press keeps speaking of. The term is just another talking point used by the oil companies and it's repeated from there used to scare us into submission. I'd argue that they used the same scare mongering in the late 70's, or sometime in the 70's I don't remember, to manipulate the masses to demand smaller cars from the automakers. I don't know for sure, but I believe the introduction of unleaded fuel was brought forth in those last days of oil which caused them to create a known carcinogen almost impossible to remove from the water supply called MTBE which was finally outlawed just last year. There's always an agenda. They scare the herd to cause them to accept something more into their (our) environment that will cause more deaths. In the end, though, there's never really any substance to the lie and it's exposed. "Peak oil" makes some sense because it's something that obviously has a finite supply and isn't renewable like soybeans or trees. Even coal is renewable, but not on a scale that would do us any good. People can grasp this and with our short memories most people don't remember the last time this same scam was used to manipulate us, so they'll let it happen again. I'm only promoting the "theory" that "peak-oil" is a long way off, not because I'm ignoring the fact that less oil is being pulled out of the ground in America but for the possible fact that the oil in our ground is staying there by choice, not because it's expensive to extract.And Ethanol is a poor substitute (other than a 10% mix to increase octane to fill the hole left by lead and MTBE) because of its significantly lower BTU density (and the fact it would harm engines that aren't designed to burn it). I love bio-diesel and intend to manufacture some for my personal use from used fryer grease and according to some sources it actually has a better BTU density then petroleum diesel. It's very exciting and I think it may be possible to use bio-diesel to remove foreign oil from that fuel supply chain in America if it's planned right. 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.

[glenstein 0]

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:

 

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.

No one has ever claimed that Peak Oil would occur globally in the 70's. So that is untrue. It wasn't promoted before.

 

Update:

 

Then then there is this..

 

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.

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.

 

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:

The term is just another talking point used by the oil companies and it's repeated from there used to scare us into submission.

Now compare your statement with the statement of Exxon Mobil:

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?

Edited February 1, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[Watermonkey 0]

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.

[glenstein 0]

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.

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.

Maybe I should take that person's advice and distrust your Russian sources?

[Watermonkey 0]

It seems to me that research from the guys you mentioned often makes use of

charts and graphs.

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

website, now defunct, doesn't count nor lend credibility) for the numbers used to create them.

 

And in their own research, they consider their work a theory that they are still developing.

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."

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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?

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...

 

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 [2004], 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].

[glenstein 0]

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.

Edited February 6, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[MusicOnly 0]

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.

[Tenshi 0]

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.

[webishqiptar 0]

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.

[dre 0]

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.

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.

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.

[rnichilo 0]

GREASE CAR!

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.

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.

You can run any diesel car or truck on vegetable oil

 

check it out, never pay for gas again!

 

 

http://www.greasecar.com/