Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
vilanodavis's picture
vilanodavis
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 18 2009
Posts: 21
Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

On the CM forums, I have attempted to engage the community in polite but logical discussion on peak oil and man made climate change but have been treated as if I have tinfoil on my head. As I am not a scientist by trade, I have not pressed the need for further discussion here, until now.  A distinguished scientist of 67 years has resigned from a society he was a lifelong member of because of the rampant corruption and the refusal to broker honest debate in that environment. Well if he can press the issue, then perhaps it is time for me to do so as well...

You can read about it Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis resigning from American Physical Society at this link or in the snippet below:

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/

"When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it."

In the article he points out that the society is hiding behind the term Incontrovertible and the group think appearance provided by the solidarity of the committee and the leadership. Clearly the solidarity and consensus does not run very deep. Are we making the same mistake on peak oil? Have we taken the time to look into and debate the merits of drilling deeper and pioneering methods to deal with the high pressures found in the deep reserves? Or have we hidden from this debate behind the Incontrovertible science veil?

I would like to see an honest, logical, reasoned debate on the topic of peak oil vs. abiotic oil. I do not doubt that the pace of discovery of new oil is not keeping pace with our usage. I do not doubt that our usage of oil has led to a exponential growth in population. What I am wondering, what I would like more information on, is this:

Is oil abiotic? Is it produced as a natural by-product of the earth's core?

Can we drill deeper (on land or nearshore) and evolve our capabilities do deal with high pressure wells?

If so, how quickly can we ramp up the facilities needed to refine abiotic oil?

I won't be offended at all if the answers to these questions are no, no, and no. But I'd like to see reasoned, logical, perhaps even scientific answers to these questions. This is too important an issue to settle for comments about taking off my tinfoil or asking me to trust the "consensus" of the experts...

Thanks in advance.

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

Perhaps this would be eaiser if you stated why you believe these things like abiotic oil might be plausible.

If you truly want an honest, logical, and reasonable debate, perhaps you could start by offering your side rather than asking the forum to do the research legwork for you.

Here is a good place to start, in the upper right of the screen you will find a search option. Type in abiotic oil. This will be the second hit:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/my-trip-midland-texas/46066

Quote:

I wish I could take everyone who believes in the scanty scientific evidence lying behind the abiotic oil ‘theory’ to the oil museum in Midland.  First of all, everyone should go simply because it is a remarkably well-run museum.  Top notch.  The Louvre of oil.  But believers in the abiotic theory should spend some time looking at one of the massive geological drilling maps on the wall there, which reveal the exact layers of the Permian basin sediments containing oil and gas.  Stacked in perfectly flat layers, like a gigantic book with pages made of rock, the sediment bands are dated to within the nearest thousand years.  Some are permeable and contain oil and gas; some are impenetrable and form the necessary cap layers that trapped the hydrocarbons.

I would be very interested to hear the abiotic explanation for how a layer could contain oil and gas, but have an impermeable layer both above and below it.  How did the abiotic oil get sandwiched there in those thin layers of permeable rock if it could not migrate from below?  Should we assume that certain types of sandstone create oil abiotically?  Further, the chemical composition of the oil (and the fossils in the sediments) exactly matches the critters known to be living in the oceans that covered the area at the time.  Another big mystery there; how did the oil, if abiotically formed, manage to infiltrate the precise layers where all these critters died, and why does the oil assume the correct biological markers and elemental traces?  Or why did the abiotic oil prefer to accumulate in the places where ancient seafloor conditions were just so, such that the fossil, geological, chemical and physical sciences all confirm the biological origin of the hydrocarbons now being exploited?

You see, this has all been hashed out many times here. You only need to search. In order for this to become a debate, you will need to start by logically refuting the information already presented against abiotic oil. If you cannot, no debate will be forthcoming, as none is required.

 

jumblies's picture
jumblies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 244
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

Alternatively, head on over to theoildrum.com for more info on the subject as they cover this and other sources

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3125
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

vilanodavis

You begin your attack on peak oil theory with an attack on climate science.  For reasons of site policy I'm not going to go into a defense of climate science on this thread, but recommend that you check out this thread:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/global-climate-change-it-worth-brushing/5895?page=0#comments

There is an exhaustive discussion of climate science going back over two years on the subject.

I will note, however, that Prof. Lewis has no background in climate science, having spent much of his career, dealing with nuclear weapons issues.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis

Further, the American Physical Society responded quite adequately to his spurious charges here:

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

Quote:

There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.

Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

  • Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
  • Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
  • The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”

Like Ready and jumblies, I suggest you review the extensive discussions on this site of both climate change and peak oil, look at the real science behind both theories and then formulate a position based on facts that you would like to discuss.

Doug

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1443
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

vilano,

Whether Peak Oil is real or not, is of no matter.  As I've stated before on this site, tptb say that Peak Oil is real.......so it is.  End of argument.

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
LogansRun wrote:

vilano,

Whether Peak Oil is real or not, is of no matter.  As I've stated before on this site, tptb say that Peak Oil is real.......so it is.  End of argument.

 

This is not how to present facts to enter a debate.

This post is an example of how to derail debate by stepping outside the bounds of logic. I fail to see any value in it whatsoever.

vilanodavis's picture
vilanodavis
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 18 2009
Posts: 21
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

"You begin your attack on peak oil theory with an attack on climate science."

I did not attack peak oil, I questioned it as an intellectually honest person might do.

I will check out the oil drum and search through CM on abiotic oil, thanks to all for the direction.

As for the response of the society, it is more of the same: "virtually all reputable scientists agree" and it does not weaken the argument that Dr Lewis made, it confirms it.

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1443
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

I disagree.  It's a great way to debate,  it cuts the argument off at the knees.  In other words, there is no debate.  It doesn't matter if there's such a thing as physical peak oil.  Why?  Because the persons that control the oil, are the ones that make the rules on such.  And the rules are:  Peak Oil is real.

Again, end of discussion.  

I'm again reminded why I've stopped posting here much.....it's a waste of time and energy. 

 

Ready wrote:
LogansRun wrote:

vilano,

Whether Peak Oil is real or not, is of no matter.  As I've stated before on this site, tptb say that Peak Oil is real.......so it is.  End of argument.

 

This is not how to present facts to enter a debate.

This post is an example of how to derail debate by stepping outside the bounds of logic. I fail to see any value in it whatsoever.

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
LogansRun wrote:

I disagree.  It's a great way to debate,  it cuts the argument off at the knees.  In other words, there is no debate.  It doesn't matter if there's such a thing as physical peak oil.  Why?  Because the persons that control the oil, are the ones that make the rules on such.  And the rules are:  Peak Oil is real.

Again, end of discussion.  

Well, I suppose if we were in second grade I would agree. We are not, and this site is unique in it's results in keeping the discussion fact based and driven by logic. Both quailities are lacking in both of your posts on this thread. You are, once again, asserting your beliefs as fact. If I am not mistaken, you have been asked to tone it down by our host and the Mods on the whole "TPTB" and NWO stuff as it has no place in rational debate or on this site, except in the Controversial Topics folder. It almost seems like you sometimes post to intentionally get threads sent there. Very strange behavior.

LogansRun wrote:

I'm again reminded why I've stopped posting here much.....it's a waste of time and energy. 

It would be easy to get snarky in response to this remark. I will refrain from doing so for obvious reasons.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

LogansRun,

Sadly, more people than just you have "slowed" or stopped posting here because of arguments like this. 

While I think the burden is on VilanoDavis to put forth an argument for abiotic oil or AGW, I see no reason that we can discuss the factual evidence that's been collected. The worst thing that can happen is we have a more composite understanding of the situations.

There's a lot left to discuss, and more yet to do. 
Let's not get aggressive towards one another.

Cheers,

Aaron 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3125
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

vilanodavis

Quote:

I did not attack peak oil, I questioned it as an intellectually honest person might do.

Granted, you did not overtly attack the theory of peak oil.  However, you did manage to categorize peak oil as being in the same box into which you have placed climate science:

Quote:

hiding behind the term Incontrovertible and the group think appearance provided by the solidarity of the committee and the leadership

 

IOW, you appear to be using this ploy to promote the notion of abiotic oil.  I feel obliged to point out that the weight of scientific evidence weighs against you here and wrt climate science, about which your mind appears to be made up. 

I'm not going to engage you on the issue of peak oil, others are better able to do that than I, but if you have evidence that the points made by the APS quoted in my post above:

Quote:
  • Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
  • Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
  • The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
  • are incorrect, I would be happy to discuss them on the "global climate change" thread I linked in that post.  I assume "an intellectually honest person" would be happy to take me up on that invitation.Smile
  • Doug
JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

Can you really separate the observed from the observer?

I'm not trying for a metaphysical analogy here, I'm referring to the scientific method . My father is a Professor of Inorganic Chemistry, and he has frequently proclaimed that the scientific method is routinely bastardized by prospect of a paycheck (funding). 

Who is funding the research that provides the facts supporting peak oil? I honestly do not know, but I would suspect that some of this information is produced/funded by the big oil companies. The one thing that makes me uncertain about the PO hypothesis, is that it fails to factor profits into the analysis of the facts. 

Still, I can't see how you can go wrong by assuming PO is fact and preparing accordingly.

 

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 651
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
Doug wrote:

vilanodavis

You begin your attack on peak oil theory with an attack on climate science.  For reasons of site policy I'm not going to go into a defense of climate science on this thread, but recommend that you check out this thread:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/global-climate-change-it-worth-brushing/5895?page=0#comments

There is an exhaustive discussion of climate science going back over two years on the subject.

I would not recommend reading much of it. There has been almost nothing to either support or rebut the assertion that increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic global warming. There are a lot of hysterical warnings of impending doom and a lot of disgusted responses with authorities cited by all, but no data.

Doug wrote:

 

I will note, however, that Prof. Lewis has no background in climate science, having spent much of his career, dealing with nuclear weapons issues.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis

Further, the American Physical Society responded quite adequately to his spurious charges here:

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

Quote:

There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.

Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

  • Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
  • Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
  • The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”

Like Ready and jumblies, I suggest you review the extensive discussions on this site of both climate change and peak oil, look at the real science behind both theories and then formulate a position based on facts that you would like to discuss.

Doug

Also, as shown above, it is often asserted that one must be a "climate scientist" in order to have standing to comment on "climate science". Bullshit. The physics is straightforward and the mathematical and computational requirements unexceptional by physicists standards. Hal Lewis certainly has the knowledge necessary to be a credible critic of both the APS and climate models. If the second bulleted point above is intended to imply that addtional carbon dioxide is certain to cause additional warming, it is pathetically wrong. My suspicion is that it was written by a secretary somewhere without consulting any physicists at all. According to the IPCC's own calculations, the degree of saturation of the CO2 absorption bands is already sufficient to reduce the direct effect of CO2 to something less than one half degree Celsius for another doubling of CO2 concentration. Any additional warming would be a result of positive feedback mechanisms that are not yet understood or established; and certainly not well enough to lend credibility to a 100 year forecast. I suspect that we could concede that humans caused the one degree Fahrenheit warming of the last 150 years and no one would give a damn if it did not portend catastrophic warming within the next century.

It is pleasing to see that even the APS says  that it "continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain."  Had they said this in the first place instead of issuing their claim of incontrovertible evidence of human causes, Hal Lewis would still be a respected member of APS. Lastly, the APS is in the process of establishing an interest group to examine the state of climate science. One would hope that they will include examination of the evidence for a warmer than present earth within the last millennium.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

Look at this and then tell me PO isn't for real......

http://dieoff.org/42Countries/42Countries.htm

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
LogansRun wrote:

I disagree. It's a great way to debate, it cuts the argument off at the knees. In other words, there is no debate. It doesn't matter if there's such a thing as physical peak oil. Why? Because the persons that control the oil, are the ones that make the rules on such. And the rules are: Peak Oil is real.

Again, end of discussion.

I'm again reminded why I've stopped posting here much.....it's a waste of time and energy.

Tod -

Is that what your Breakfast Club is telling you to think now?

And you told us you didn't care about us anymore...........Cool

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
JAG wrote:

Can you really separate the observed from the observer?

I'm not trying for a metaphysical analogy here, I'm referring to the scientific method . My father is a Professor of Inorganic Chemistry, and he has frequently proclaimed that the scientific method is routinely bastardized by prospect of a paycheck (funding). 

Who is funding the research that provides the facts supporting peak oil? I honestly do not know, but I would suspect that some of this information is produced/funded by the big oil companies. The one thing that makes me uncertain about the PO hypothesis, is that it fails to factor profits into the analysis of the facts. 

In my opinion, this is the only plausible point to debate re peak oil. In summary, how do you trust the data being presented upon which you decide for or against?

Answer: unless you enjoy doing research, you have to either trust or not trust. JAG, if you were honest I would suspect that you would admit that you have not done much more than a cursory look into PO. While it does take some effort and deduction, it is possible to tease out some facts that perhaps are not incontrovertable, but sure go a long way in making the case.

For example, let's look at Mexico.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/global/09pemex.html

Quote:

To the Mexican people, one of the great achievements in their history was the day their president kicked out foreign oil companies in 1938. Thus, they celebrate March 18 as a civic holiday.

...

Oil production in its aging fields is sagging so rapidly that Mexico, long one of the world’s top oil-exporting countries, could begin importing oil within the decade.

Mexico is among the three leading foreign suppliers of oil to the United States, along with Canada and Saudi Arabia. Mexican barrels can be replaced, but at a cost. It means greater American dependence on unfriendly countries like Venezuela, unstable countries like Nigeria and Iraq, and on the oil sands of Canada, an environmentally destructive form of oil production.

Now, keep in mind that Mexico completely depends economically on it's oil exports. While this number is falling as they travel down the back side of the peak, traditionally 40% of the government's revenue came from international oil sales.

Mexico is a mess in so many ways. Now they have their backs against the wall because of the realities of PO. What scenario can you possibily envision in which Mexico would willingly (again, the government, not corporate interests control Pemex and 100% of the oil) not only lose 40% of their govenment's funding, but simultaneously require increased spending as they cross the line and become a net oil importer? We are watching Mexico become a failed state right in front of our eyes.

I use the example of Mexico because it is close to you, but there are dozens more. Folks who cross the net production line and begin importing who do not have the size and military of the US or the artificial backing of the world reserve currency begin to slowly revert to old times, moving towards the direction of 3rd world status, or are already there. If it were possible to pump more, wouldn't they? How does Mexico profit by faking PO?

So, if you boil it down, PO deniers are basically saying that unrelated countries all over the globe are either:

1   Faking PO for some reason

2   Being forced to fake PO by some market driven force where someone is making a profit

 

I'm all ears if someone can give me a mechanism for #2, or a reason for #1.

 

JAG wrote:

Still, I can't see how you can go wrong by assuming PO is fact and preparing accordingly.

Since when do you cop out JAG?

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

What little I know about Peak Oil I learned here, on this site. I’m inclined to accept the claims, though the duration that we can sustain is an open question in my mind. Like many, I tend to disregard government figures for global oil supplies, there are just too many reasons and motivations to deliberately misrepresent the actual supplies.

So how would the equity markets handle, or should I say how do the equity markets handle the premise of Peak Oil. From my vantage point not being a professional trader, it seems like they are largely ignoring this possibility, the major oil stocks are doing just fine, despite recent catastrophies in the Gulf, and notably higher drilling costs. I guess I do not find this at all unusual, I would be quite surprised to find that any large petroleum multi-national would do anything at all but deny even the remotest possibility that Peak Oil exists. If they so much as acknowledged it, what would happen to the market value of these firms? It would plummet and plummet fast as any and all investors raced for the exits.  No, I would expect that they would actively and vigorously deny that there is any possibility of a supply disruption. What do their annual reports to investors say about future supplies? If Exxon Mobil suddenly announced that they are going to pump out their last barrel next month, this might well be hard to pass off on the shareholders, and angry shareholders carry clout, unlike the general population.

Despite this, due to the degree of regulatory capture that this industry has demonstrated, it would seem likely that they would simply try and pass off the depletion of their critical oil supplies as a complete surprise, and then just announce, to the consternation of the executive management, that they just suddenly, with no warning, ran out.

I would also not be surprised to find substantial misinformation being propogated by these same actors to actively discourage those who might want to raise this concern to a mass media level, in a subsidized effort to “keep the dream alive”.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
vilanodavis wrote:

I would like to see an honest, logical, reasoned debate on the topic of peak oil vs. abiotic oil. I do not doubt that the pace of discovery of new oil is not keeping pace with our usage. I do not doubt that our usage of oil has led to a exponential growth in population. What I am wondering, what I would like more information on, is this:

Is oil abiotic? Is it produced as a natural by-product of the earth's core?

Can we drill deeper (on land or nearshore) and evolve our capabilities do deal with high pressure wells?

If so, how quickly can we ramp up the facilities needed to refine abiotic oil?

I won't be offended at all if the answers to these questions are no, no, and no. But I'd like to see reasoned, logical, perhaps even scientific answers to these questions. This is too important an issue to settle for comments about taking off my tinfoil or asking me to trust the "consensus" of the experts...

Thanks in advance.

vilanodavis -

It seems to me that the Achille's Heel of the answers to your questions is that sufficiently vetted scientific data doesn't exist  - one way or the other - to substantiate or disprove claims regarding abiotic oil.  The old "The absence of proof isn't the proof of absence" conundrum.

So assuming abiotic oil does exist the other answers get a little clearer.  If abiotic oil does exist, then it would make sense that we would figure out a way to extract it.  I'll leave the determination of motive - corporate profit or betterment of man - for others to argue.

Unless abiotic oil is found to be different from "normal" oil, why should we expect it to require new facilities to crack?  The process may need some tweaking, but we are probably pretty close.

What it really comes down to is this - does the earth's core produce enough abiotic oil that we can't put a dent in the supply no matter what we do?  If abiotic oil isn't renewing itself or being created faster than it can be extracted then it's just a matter of time before PAO - Peak Abiotic Oil.  Will we have learned our lesson from Peak Regular Oil?  I doubt it.

I think discussions of abiotic oil are interesting, but in my opinion it's still in the realm of science fiction and/or wishful thinking. 

vilanodavis's picture
vilanodavis
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 18 2009
Posts: 21
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

Thanks for the replies with their varying degree of thoughtfulness, ire, and good will. I'll continue to "drill down" into the research but I am grateful for someone to kick ideas around with.

I came across a great collection of links on the topic at this thread from 2004 http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html which has an interesting twist. The Ukranians and Russians are just a confident in their theory of abiotic oil as westerners are with their fossil origin theory.

It bears futher research, but since we have had a few folks looking for the shortcut answer, riddle me this. Why has the country that pioneered the theory of abiotic oil for 50 years now become a global energy juggernaut while the western hemisphere who believes in fossil fuel has become a vociferous importer of oil.

Snippet

NEWSLETTER #52
March 13, 2004
Cop v CIA (Center for an Informed America)

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html

excerpt:

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement. (http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm)

It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena.

So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.

I am sorry to report here, by the way, that in doing my homework, I never did come across any of that "hard science" documenting 'Peak Oil' that Mr. Strahl referred to. All the 'Peak Oil' literature that I found, on Ruppert's site and elsewhere, took for granted that petroleum is a non-renewable 'fossil fuel.' That theory is never questioned, nor is any effort made to validate it. It is simply taken to be an established scientific fact, which it quite obviously is not.

So what do Ruppert and his resident experts have to say about all of this? Dale Allen Pfeiffer, identified as the "FTW Contributing Editor for Energy," has written: "There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless." (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_oil_recession.html)

Here is a question that I have for both Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Pfeiffer: Do you consider it honest, responsible journalism to dismiss a fifty year body of multi-disciplinary scientific research, conducted by hundreds of the world's most gifted scientists, as "some speculation"?

vilanodavis's picture
vilanodavis
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 18 2009
Posts: 21
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

Logan, your point is not without merit.

While I understand that the TPTB have just as much motivation and capacity to act here as say in precious metals manipulation (which is apparently not considered conspiracy theory realm by those on this forum) , I am less interested in their version of reality than in reality itself.

I am not sure that any actions, prepping or otherwise, will lead to a meaningful mitigation of the collapse that seems sure to come. But, I have a conviction that I want to do all I can to have a clean conscience about the world I hand my kids. To me that means seeking out truth, in promoting common sense solutions based on sound logic and reliable data points, and in championing the 'right' solutions even when they are ridiculed.

Thanks for the thoughtful contribution though.

vilanodavis's picture
vilanodavis
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 18 2009
Posts: 21
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

It is apparently real for countries that are relying on science and assumptions of oil being a fossil fuel.

I noted that Russia (where the abiotic oil theory originated) was missing from your list of countries in decline and that it is now (different than ranking in 2008) the number 1 oil producer in the world according to the CIA fact book.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html

DurangoKid's picture
DurangoKid
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 25 2008
Posts: 174
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

On peak oil, read the following:

The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg

The End of the Oil Age by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

Google videos on:

Colin Campbell, founder of ASPO

Kenneth Defeyes (sp?)

robert newman history of oil  (a comedy sketch, many a truth told in jest)

Abiotic oil?  Nope.  The chemistry is wrong, the isotopes are wrong, the geophysics are wrong.  And it has never been found anywhere.

Finally, on the Peak Oil issue itself, the actual peak of production is not really important.  The salient issue is the fact that at some point, the growth in the oil supply will falter for geological reasons.  Before and after that point, oil production will appear more or less the same.  People will panic over little valleys and hills in the graphs, but they aren't as important as the notion that once we hit the bumpy plateau, our systems of finance will falter.  Our global debt based money supply is predicated on the idea that the future will always be bigger than the present.  Growth will take care of the interest burden and provide profits forever, or so they think.  Just the fact that the oil supply won't grow to keep up with projections in the expected rate of growth is a catastrophe in itself.  In a few years, say 5 or so, the inevitable decline in the exported oil supply will change everything.  Finance will collapse.  The 2008/2009 debacle is just a warm up.

The other issue that has been conveniently ignored by the corporate press and many others is the fact that the elites in charge of this whole mess have known about Peak Oil since the early 70's.  After the US lower 48 peak in production, the CIA commissioned a study of middle eastern oil reserves as military targets.  Over the last 40 years the plan at the highest levels has been to do nothing about weaning us off hydrocarbons and onto something else.  These people aren't idiots.  They pretty much run the world and get what they want.  If people claim they are bumblers, explain how their share of the pie has doubled in the last 40 years while everyone else has stayed the same or gotten poorer?  It's difficult to discern intent, so we must judge by their actions. 

Their reaction to Peak Oil seems to be to get everyone else up to their chins in debt.  And by that I mean everyone from working people strung out on credit card debt to entire countries under the thumb of the IMF and World Bank.  How do their actions compare to WWII?  Automobile assembly lines were converted to aircraft production.  Systems of rationing were devised.  The propaganda system went into overdrive.  Everyone was mobilized for the war effort.  Now we face disruptions in industrial culture that make the Nazi threat look like a picnic.  What is the reaction from the power elites?  Mobilize the means of production away from SUV's toward wind turbines?  Mandated conservation and rationing schemes?  Nope.  Give bankers lots of bail outs and stick the working class with the bill.  Rely on that oldest of profit centers called warfare.  Deregulate finance and dream up derivatives with trillions of dollars worth of exposure.

Clearly, they have no solution for Peak Oil.  And that's a reasonable approach if you understand the thermodynamics of industrialism.  Simply put, there is no solution for Peak Oil.  Peak Oil is not a problem, it is a constraint.  The strategy is to remain in charge whatever the outcome and by any means necessary.  At least for the next 40 or 50 years commodities will be produced and consumed in some quantity.  There will continue to be opportunities to extract wealth from those who actually have to work for it.  Through propaganda and coercion, the elites will be able to continue in opulence as before.  The rest of the surplus population will be left to a hard scrabble existence.  The kind of structural adjustments inflicted by the IMF and World Bank on developing countries will be brought ashore.  We're seeing it now with attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and other wealth redistribution schemes.  Have no fear, however.  Gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military.  They will have an equal right to be shot up and discarded just like straight people.  As if the only problem with imperial armies is a question of  attitudes toward sexual orientation.  I guess drone attacks on children will be okay if a lesbian pushes the buttons.

In this analysis, "doing something" about Peak Oil just isn't in the cards.  For starters, to do what is required address the coming suffering and deprivation runs counter to the mythology of free markets.  It would require democratic control of the means of production.  It would require a collective response to a common constraint.  It runs counter to the notion of private profits from private means of production while externalising the costs on the commons.  The propaganda system itself cannot cope.  To confront Peak Oil in any meaningful sense would be to expose the big lie.  That cannot be tolerated.  Better to just continue with business as usual on the assumption that regardless of what emerges at the end of the oil age, the elites and their descendents will maintain their dominance.  Nothing else matters.

My final suggestion for reading is:

Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges.

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
vilanodavis wrote:

It bears futher research, but since we have had a few folks looking for the shortcut answer, riddle me this. Why has the country that pioneered the theory of abiotic oil for 50 years now become a global energy juggernaut while the western hemisphere who believes in fossil fuel has become a vociferous importer of oil.

Wow, where to start?

 

I'm at a loss for words, so I'll wish you best of luck and hope someone else can help you.

 

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
Ready wrote:
vilanodavis wrote:

It bears futher research, but since we have had a few folks looking for the shortcut answer, riddle me this. Why has the country that pioneered the theory of abiotic oil for 50 years now become a global energy juggernaut while the western hemisphere who believes in fossil fuel has become a vociferous importer of oil.

Wow, where to start?

I'm at a loss for words, so I'll wish you best of luck and hope someone else can help you.

In other words, "I had a preconceived notion and just wanted to argue"?  This thread just took "that" turn.

Wait up Ready, I'm right behind you.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3125
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
Ready wrote:
vilanodavis wrote:

It bears futher research, but since we have had a few folks looking for the shortcut answer, riddle me this. Why has the country that pioneered the theory of abiotic oil for 50 years now become a global energy juggernaut while the western hemisphere who believes in fossil fuel has become a vociferous importer of oil.

Wow, where to start?

 

I'm at a loss for words, so I'll wish you best of luck and hope someone else can help you.

My first reaction to that statement was that we have had 150 years of the greatest financial, technological, industrial and educational growth in history based on cheap fossil fuels.  50 years of largely hypothetical notions of abiotic oil doesn't really measure up.  Yes, Russia has a lot of oil.  Is it your contention that all that oil is abiotic?  Where's the evidence?  Show us the science.

Doug

DurangoKid's picture
DurangoKid
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 25 2008
Posts: 174
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
Doug wrote:
Ready wrote:
vilanodavis wrote:

It bears futher research, but since we have had a few folks looking for the shortcut answer, riddle me this. Why has the country that pioneered the theory of abiotic oil for 50 years now become a global energy juggernaut while the western hemisphere who believes in fossil fuel has become a vociferous importer of oil.

Wow, where to start?

 

I'm at a loss for words, so I'll wish you best of luck and hope someone else can help you.

My first reaction to that statement was that we have had 150 years of the greatest financial, technological, industrial and educational growth in history based on cheap fossil fuels.  50 years of largely hypothetical notions of abiotic oil doesn't really measure up.  Yes, Russia has a lot of oil.  Is it your contention that all that oil is abiotic?  Where's the evidence?  Show us the science.

Doug

 

Where do we start?  How about 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'?

r's picture
r
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...

Peak oil is real when it's real.  That is to say, when people wake up early to get in the line for gas then for them it will be real.

Same with climate change.  Someone wrote in another thread, don't remember who right now, he hasn't seen a major species die-off yet due to climate change.  How long do we have to wait until that happens?

People are generally better at reacting than planning ahead when the issues are seen as long-term risks.

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
DurangoKid wrote:

Where do we start?  How about 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'?

In not so many words and not in a dead language couldn't we start by changing the thread title to "Incontrovertible Tinfoil vs. Science"?

Sorry, I couldn't resist  Laughing

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:
Ready wrote:
vilanodavis wrote:

It bears futher research, but since we have had a few folks looking for the shortcut answer, riddle me this. Why has the country that pioneered the theory of abiotic oil for 50 years now become a global energy juggernaut while the western hemisphere who believes in fossil fuel has become a vociferous importer of oil.

Wow, where to start?

I'm at a loss for words, so I'll wish you best of luck and hope someone else can help you.

In other words, "I had a preconceived notion and just wanted to argue"?  This thread just took "that" turn.

Wait up Ready, I'm right behind you.

Quite simply belief always trumps logic.

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
DurangoKid wrote:

 Where do we start?  How about 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'?

Well said sir, and one of my favorite West Wing episodes to boot. Aaron Sorkin is such an intellegent screenwriter, regardless what you think of his politics.

 

When beliefs and emotion are high, reason and logic neccesarily take it across the chops. Happens to the best of us.

yobob1's picture
yobob1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 132
Re: Tinfoil vs. Incontrovertible Science...
r wrote:

Peak oil is real when it's real.  That is to say, when people wake up early to get in the line for gas then for them it will be real.

Same with climate change.  Someone wrote in another thread, don't remember who right now, he hasn't seen a major species die-off yet due to climate change.  How long do we have to wait until that happens?

People are generally better at reacting than planning ahead when the issues are seen as long-term risks.

 

Yes species never died before man came along and started mowing them down with gas sucking SUV's.  Tongue out  But since we know that global warming is killing species off, has anyone bothered to count how many new ones have cropped up in comparison?

I'll say this about that - watch solar cycle 24.   Consider that all known die-offs that were climate induced occurred because of global cooling.  When the planet warms (and its been way hotter in the past than even the wildest "projections" for the next 100 years of "gerbil warming") the numbers of species grows and the populations of most species has grown.  Not so much so when they have 1/2 mile of ice on top of them and the only thing to eat is another poor animal looking for food.  You may also want to keep in mind that the other planets were warming right along with us.  I guess all those Mars rovers were really Cadillac Escapades running without catalytic converters.

The predictions for Solar Cycle 24 have plummeted from "one of the most intense" to now one of the least intense cycles of the past 400 years. If the anemic activity continues, the sun may be entering a quiet phase similar to the Dalton Minimum, characterized by approximately 50 sunspots/month at the peak of the solar cycle.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/solar-cycle-prediction-lowered...

Of course there's this written in 1975 - Newsweek

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Of course they're never wrong twice. 

I'm all in favor of using fewer hydrocarbons and cleaner air.  What I'm against is the imposition of taxes to combat a perceived threat built on a whole lot of bad science.  All govts are in the same boat - they owe too much and have too many unfunded liabilities.  They all saw "gerbil warming" as a way to sneak in a tax on all human activity on the planet and have the people feel good about it - they're "saving the planet" - or "its for the children" - can't remember which. Unfortunately on the way to the collection box, the economy went off the rails and the planet stopped warming (1998).

We may not be entering a period similar to the Maunder Minimum, but we certainly could have sufficient cooling to affect growing season lengths in the Northern sections of the planet if we have a couple of real weak solar cycles.

I have to also laugh at the simple fact the 10 day weather forecasts are about as accurate as govt. employment numbers.  They can't forecast reliably beyond a few days and yet they can forecast 100 years in advance?  They are clueless.

The moon orbits the Earth which orbits the sun which orbits the galactic center.  It takes about 225 million years for the sun to make one "lap" around the center.  We have about 5,000 years of recorded history and maybe 500 years with anything that could be called science.  As we spin along we are subject to all sorts of new and fun forces.  We base our ability to project our future on nothing (.00002% of one lap) - which is pretty much what we know in the big picture - nothing.  That's like being asked to drive the Le Mans racing circuit (13,629 meters)blidfolded by only being allowed to see about 2.7 cm of track in the rear view mirror.

As to the oil - I haven't seen either theory proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  I do find it more likely that the majority of oil is organic in origin.  We should be able to "recreate" it in the lab with an organic base subjected to heat and pressure.  We can make diamonds now - the only way to detect them is by their lack of flaws.  On the other hand if (some) oil is abiotic, then we should be able to runs some experiments to recreate that process.  You would think someone would have tried it by now - maybe they have and they've been locked in the same safe that the "200 mpg carburetor" is kept.Sealed

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments