Posted on 12/05/2006 1:02:40 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
There's a joke in there somewhere, but this being a family type forum I'm not going to dig it out.
No sirree Bob. Not me. I like it around here.
L
What in the world gave that first man an idea that he could get "gasoline" out of oil in the first place? What would have given him that idea?
Just because hyrdocarbons are renewable, does not mean they will do so in time before we use up the existing supllies. That to me is the real issue.
Two quick points:
1) We are constantly discovering huge amounts of new gas and oil. And that not even going after easily tapped sources in Alaska or the Gulf Coast.
2) Technology will drastically change our energy sources/needs in the next 50 years.
There is scarcity, but it is a scarcity of supply versus demand.
Which makes for higher prices, which permit drilling deeper, higher exploration and development expenditures, and the technological developments which find more oil, and when that runs low in relation to demand, the cycle repeats.
So far, the situation has proven to be one of logistics and economics more than one of whether or not there is any oil left.
I agree with that, but I also think there is a scarcity of honesty concerning from where oil is actually derived. "Peak Oil" is a scam.
So far, the situation has proven to be one of logistics and economics
.......... "logistics and economics" and environmental-case politics and greed.
Haven't the Russians been using the regeneration model for decades with great success?
This is an absurd statement you realize right? There are lots of ways to produce methane. No one argues to the contrary.
Would one of you please explain why the US oil production has now peaked and is rapidly dwindling?
It would be great if you did so based on this theory you are purporting rather than tell me it is because we are not drilling in other places cause I already know that. Of course maybe you can also explain why they won't eventually run out too.
Or, even if oil is generated in this way, how we are not currently burning more than the earth produces? Because up to this point, I haven't read anything that makes much sense.
Yes.
"Finally, a word of caution on the essential fragility of a study on the very long-term future for the world's energy supply which accepts without question the validity of the original 18th century hypothesis that all oil and gas resources have been generated from biological matter in the chemical and thermodynamic environments of the earth's crust. There is an alternative theory - already 50 years old - which suggests an inorganic origin for additional oil and gas. This alternative view is widely accepted in the countries of the former Soviet Union where, it is claimed, "large volumes of hydrocarbons are being produced from the pre-Cambrian crystalline basement". Recent applications of the inorganic theory have, however, also led to claims for the possibility of the Middle East fields being able to produce oil "forever" and to the concept of repleting oil and gas fields in the gulf of Mexico. More generally, it is argued, "all giant fields are most logically explained by inorganic theory because simple calculations of potential hydrocarbon contents in sediments shows that organic materials are too few to supply the volumes of petroleum involved.""
cows?
It wasn't a statement. Statements end in periods. Questions end with question marks.
There are lots of ways to produce methane
I wasn't aware of that. Can you give me a couple of examples of other ways to make methane? (There's that question mark thingy.) I'm only aware of one way, and that's the decay of plant matter.
L
…then is "Peak Oil" a fraud?
The answer would depend on the rate new oil is being formed. If it is forming as fast as we use it, no problem.
Oil companies can't do much with oil if they have chosen to close down a number of refineries and have also not made much real noise about building new ones.
From a few years ago:
"Three separate internal confidential memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco have been obtained by The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights."
"These memos outline a deliberate agenda to gouge prices and create artificial scarcity by limiting capacities of and outright closing oil refineries. This was a nationwide lobbying effort led by the American Petroleum Institute to encourage refineries to do this."
"An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins.""
"The Memos make clear that blockages in refining capacity and opening new refineries did not come from environmental organizations, as the oil industry claimed, but via a deliberate policy of limitation and price gouging at the behest of the oil industry itself."
Secondly, it does not serve their profit line to produce great amounts of oil.
Or, even if oil is generated in this way, how we are not currently burning more than the earth produces?
I really don't understand that sentence.
First of all, you are right. It was not a statement and thus I apologize for my comment that it was.
Here are some articles. The first two actually mention Titan:
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=285
http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=302
http://www.pfs-results.it/index.php?id=29
http://www.llnl.gov/PAO/news/news_releases/2004/NR-04-09-07.html
These explain a bit about this difference between biological and non-biological:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060325/fob1.asp
http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19829
Limiting refining capacity and the slow but steady emptying of oil fields are, for me, two completely different things. Perhaps you can clarify how they are one and the same. And why the US hit a peak of oil production and is now producing less.
Surely American oil companies would rather get the oil out of US territory than going to more dangerous places.
Yes indeed they are two different things. Who suggested that they were one and the same?
And why the US hit a peak of oil production and is now producing less.
If that is true, it is purposeful.
Surely American oil companies would rather get the oil out of US territory than going to more dangerous places.
Hmmm.
Peak oil fits in neatly with the eco-terrorist lobby that claims we are running out of oil and need to give up our cars. They would hate for the US to exploit new oil fields on American soil that would allow us to be energy independent.
Speak for yourself.
Besides the fact that they are about the size and shape of one of those busses that carry 'special needs' students, I don't see why not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.