Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Take a look at the Peak Oil article in Wikipedia:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:23 PM
Original message
Take a look at the Peak Oil article in Wikipedia:
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 03:23 PM by originalpckelly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. And then there is this...
<snip>
Peak Oil Theory vs. Russian-Ukrainian Modern Theory
by George Crispin


Early this month I wrote a column entitled Oil Reserves Are Increasing. It was based on the recent history of the Eugene Island platform, which started up in the 70’s delivering 15,000 barrels of oil a day. Then it followed the normal life of an oil well until the 80’s when, having given every appearance of having run dry it reversed itself and returned nearly to its original production volume. That in itself might not be controversial but my statement "that this leads to speculation that the world has limitless supplies of oil" generated quite a reaction. My positions were characterized as "irresponsible fairy tales." There may have been errors in my statistics and if so I apologize for them, but they do not change the argument.

Since I had taken some of my information from Thomas Gold and his book The Deep Hot Biosphere, I thought to defend myself with a brief history of his theory that most petroleum or the material from which it is formed was primordial, that is it was created deep inside the earth when the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. Then I discovered that the theory might not have originated with him. He was one of the few Western scientists who could read Russian. And he discovered that Soviet scientists were familiar with theory and were using it to develop wells. It was actually quite old, but had been totally ignored by Western scientists until Gold showed some interest. Many peer reviewed papers and discussions of the theory by scientists of several disciplines were available but all in Russian. Gold was the only man in the West with the necessary scientific background who could read them.

In 1946 Stalin, one of the leading killers of all time but no fool, recognized that Soviet Russia was short of oil, particularly if he was going to successfully wage war on the world. At that time the Baku fields in Russia were running dry and most Soviet territory appeared to not contain oil. His assignment to his scientific community was to learn all that was possible about petroleum and its origins. "By 1951, what has been called the modern Russian – Ukrainian Theory Of Deep Abiotic Petroleum Origins" was born (maybe born again would be more accurate), and debated, studied and peer reviewed for twenty years, all in Russian of course, and completely ignored by the West.

It has long since been much more than a theory and for twenty years Russian drillers have successfully brought in super deep wells using it. The deepest exploratory hole went to 40,000 feet. Russia, once regarded as having little potential, is now, along with ourselves and Saudi Arabia one of the top three oil producers in the world. There are more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district, all producing from crystalline basement rock. 90 petroleum fields have been developed in western Siberia. "11 major and one giant field have been developed in the Dnieper-Donets basin;" there are 20 wells in Viet Nam producing at 17,000 feet in areas that Western experts considered not worth exploring.

This might seem of little import, were it not for the fact that many people insist that much of the world will shortly be out of oil (a true irresponsible fairy tale), which will make it necessary for countries to seize oil fields. The world is not running out of oil and typically anyone owning an oil field is interested in finding a market for its product.

April 26, 2005

http://www.lewrockwell.com/crispin/crispin11.html

http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2008/04/21/abiogenic-oil/

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TIS7AZ51N81H
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Stalinist science, lew rockwell, what's right with this picture? nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Do you always shoot the messenger so you can go on depending on these guys?
<snip>
June 22, 2008]


Saudi Arabia says it will meet oil demand

(Dallas Morning News, The (KRT) Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia _ Saudi Arabia on Sunday said it would supply enough oil to meet global demand for the rest of the year, but differed sharply with the Bush administration by blaming speculators for the sharp increase in oil prices.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/06/22/3511032.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. The Cornucopians are grasping at some mighty thin straws.
The theory is about as sound as lysenko genetics and for similar reasons. Stalin was out of oil and demanded his scientists invent a reality where that was not so, and rather than get shot, that is what they did. This theory's re-emergence is based on the need of the right wing Cornucopian global warming/peak-oil deniers to have some pseudo-scientific theory to hang on to, much like they need intelligent design to base their theocratic agenda for our schools on.

You get back to me when there is some basis to actually believe this stuff is valid.

Lew Rockwell is a fucking nazi. Linking to his fucking nazi website is generally considered bad form here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. What do you know about George Crispin?
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 03:53 PM by Jim__
I'd never heard of him, so I did a search on his name. I found this, praising Icons of Evolution:

Darwin’s evolutionary materialism, the belief that life arose and evolved by chance has pretty much remained unchanged since it was proposed, and this is despite the fact that the missing link had to be abandoned, vital fossil records have never appeared, and it cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion or the irreducible complexity of a single cell. Now in his book Icons Of Evolution, Jonathan Wells shows "that many of the traditional proofs for Darwinian evolution are at best open to multiple interpretations, and are at worst . . . faked."


Doesn't give me a real warm and fuzzy about his scientific opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Well, I am not about to assign my Social Security check over to him
...but I certainly would like to hear more about

<snip>
Abiogenic Oil

Sterling's Preface:
There is a substantial body of evidence to support this theory. That does not negate, however, the quest for getting away from dependence on fossil fuels. The greenhouse gasses produced by the burning of such will continue to be a pressing matter that must be addressed. Now that the world has achieved a consciousness about how we treat our planet, this news that we are not so far from depleting our oil reserves is a welcome breath of fresh air, removing some of the panic effect that can foster unrest.



Supporting Evidence, Briefly
Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found.
Wells pumped dry later replenished.
Volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models.
In Situ production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle. (PhysicsWeb; Sept. 14, 2004)

<MORE>

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Most of earth's crust that existed over 4 billion years ago is long gone, subducted into the earth.
Most of earth's crust today is not that old compared to the age of the earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. How old is the crust?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. I'm with you, Whistle
but mostly because I believe that 2+2=4

BIG OIL gets GW elected for a reason-and one reason ONLY-

to make billions!

Notice how the prices have slipped up and up and up-gee-only in the last 7 and 1/2 years!! DING DING DING!

Then the speculators come into play with some nasty dirty pool and everyone in Big Oil is ecstatic, and GW has paid his debt, by allowing it to continue to happen!

Time is running out-not oil!

Make the last billions while you can!!!That's BIG OIL's motto!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yeppers. It's a couple of years past, in fact.
Yearly EIA average production figures topped out in 2005 at 84.631 mbd.

It'll take several more years of watching the rear-view mirror to make sure that 2005 was in fact the peak, but even this close, it's looking pretty peaky.

Oh, yeah -- demand keeps increasing, too. It's up an http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/worldbusiness/28oil-WEB.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">estimated 1.2 mbd for 2008. We're looking at a built-in shortfall that's moving well into the two percent range. We're starting to "burn the furniture."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC