Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

'Peak Oil' Is a Waste of Energy

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Eric Gisin

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 11:44:02 AM8/26/09
to
Notice how the Greenies shift from one apocalypse to the next every decade?
90s: we're running out of fossil fuels, we're going to die!
00s: there are too much fossil fuels, we're going to burn!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

'Peak Oil' Is a Waste of Energy
By MICHAEL LYNCH
Published: August 24, 2009

REMEMBER "peak oil"? It's the theory that geological scarcity will at some point make it impossible
for global petroleum production to avoid falling, heralding the end of the oil age and,
potentially, economic catastrophe. Well, just when we thought that the collapse in oil prices since
last summer had put an end to such talk, along comes Fatih Birol, the top economist at the
International Energy Agency, to insist that we'll reach the peak moment in 10 years, a decade
sooner than most previous predictions (although a few ardent pessimists believe the moment of no
return has already come and gone).
Like many Malthusian beliefs, peak oil theory has been promoted by a motivated group of scientists
and laymen who base their conclusions on poor analyses of data and misinterpretations of technical
material. But because the news media and prominent figures like James Schlesinger, a former
secretary of energy, and the oilman T. Boone Pickens have taken peak oil seriously, the public is
understandably alarmed.

A careful examination of the facts shows that most arguments about peak oil are based on anecdotal
information, vague references and ignorance of how the oil industry goes about finding fields and
extracting petroleum. And this has been demonstrated over and over again: the founder of the
Association for the Study of Peak Oil first claimed in 1989 that the peak had already been reached,
and Mr. Schlesinger argued a decade earlier that production was unlikely to ever go much higher.

Mr. Birol isn't the only one still worrying. One leading proponent of peak oil, the writer Paul
Roberts, recently expressed shock to discover that the liquid coming out of the Ghawar Field in
Saudi Arabia, the world's largest known deposit, is around 35 percent water and rising. But this is
hardly a concern - the buildup is caused by the Saudis pumping seawater into the field to keep
pressure up and make extraction easier. The global average for water in oil field yields is
estimated to be as high as 75 percent.

Another critic, a prominent consultant and investor named Matthew Simmons, has raised concerns over
oil engineers using "fuzzy logic" to estimate reservoir holdings. But fuzzy logic is a programming
method that has been used since I was in graduate school in situations where the factors are hazy
and variable - everything from physical science to international relations - and its track record
in oil geology has been quite good.

But those are just the latest arguments - for the most part the peak-oil crowd rests its case on
three major claims: that the world is discovering only one barrel for every three or four produced;
that political instability in oil-producing countries puts us at an unprecedented risk of having
the spigots turned off; and that we have already used half of the two trillion barrels of oil that
the earth contained.

Let's take the rate-of-discovery argument first: it is a statement that reflects ignorance of
industry terminology. When a new field is found, it is given a size estimate that indicates how
much is thought to be recoverable at that point in time. But as years pass, the estimate is almost
always revised upward, either because more pockets of oil are found in the field or because new
technology makes it possible to extract oil that was previously unreachable. Yet because petroleum
geologists don't report that additional recoverable oil as "newly discovered," the peak oil
advocates tend to ignore it. In truth, the combination of new discoveries and revisions to size
estimates of older fields has been keeping pace with production for many years.

A related argument - that the "easy oil" is gone and that extraction can only become more difficult
and cost-ineffective - should be recognized as vague and irrelevant. Drillers in Persia a century
ago certainly didn't consider their work easy, and the mechanized, computerized industry of today
is a far sight from 19th-century mule-drawn rigs. Hundreds of fields that produce "easy oil" today
were once thought technologically unreachable.

The latest acorn in the discovery debate is a recent increase in the overall estimated rate at
which production is declining in large oil fields. This is assumed to be the result of the
"superstraw" technologies that have become dominant over the past decade, which can drain fields
faster than ever. True, because quicker extraction causes the fluid pressure in the field to drop
rapidly, the wells become less and less productive over time. But this declining return on
individual wells doesn't necessarily mean that whole fields are being cleaned out. As the Saudis
have proved in recent years at Ghawar, additional investment - to find new deposits and drill new
wells - can keep a field's overall production from falling.

When their shaky claims on geology are exposed, the peak-oil advocates tend to argue that today's
geopolitical instability needs to be taken into consideration. But political risk is hardly new: a
leading Communist labor organizer in the Baku oil industry in the early 1900s would later be known
to the world as Josef Stalin.

When the large supply disruptions of 1973 and 1979 led to skyrocketing prices, nearly all oil
experts said the underlying cause was resource scarcity and that prices would go ever higher in the
future. The oil companies diversified their investments - Mobil even started buying up department
stores! - and President Jimmy Carter pushed for the development of synthetic fuels like shale oil,
arguing that markets were too myopic to realize the imminent need for substitutes. All sorts of
policy wonks, energy consultants and Nobel-prize-winning economists jumped on the bandwagon to
explain that prices would only go up - even though they had never done so historically. Prices
instead proceeded to slide for two decades, rather as the tide ignored King Canute.

Just as, in the 1970s, it was the Arab oil embargo and the Iranian Revolution, today it is the
invasion of Iraq and instability in Venezuela and Nigeria. But the solution, as ever, is for the
industry to shift investment into new regions, and that's what it is doing. Yet peak-oil advocates
take advantage of the inevitable delay in bringing this new production on line to claim that global
production is on an irreversible decline.

In the end, perhaps the most misleading claim of the peak-oil advocates is that the earth was
endowed with only 2 trillion barrels of "recoverable" oil. Actually, the consensus among geologists
is that there are some 10 trillion barrels out there. A century ago, only 10 percent of it was
considered recoverable, but improvements in technology should allow us to recover some 35 percent -
another 2.5 trillion barrels - in an economically viable way. And this doesn't even include such
potential sources as tar sands, which in time we may be able to efficiently tap.

Oil remains abundant, and the price will likely come down closer to the historical level of $30 a
barrel as new supplies come forward in the deep waters off West Africa and Latin America, in East
Africa, and perhaps in the Bakken oil shale fields of Montana and North Dakota. But that may not
keep the Chicken Littles from convincing policymakers in Washington and elsewhere that oil, being
finite, must increase in price. (That's the logic that led the Carter administration to create the
Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a $3 billion boondoggle that never produced a gallon of useable fuel.)

This is not to say that we shouldn't keep looking for other cost-effective, low-pollution energy
sources - why not broaden our options? But we can't let the false threat of disappearing oil lead
the government to throw money away on harebrained renewable energy schemes or impose unnecessary
and expensive conservation measures on a public already struggling through tough economic times.


Michael Lynch, the former director for Asian energy and security at the Center for International
Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is an energy consultant.

Ouroboros Rex

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 12:12:27 PM8/26/09
to
Eric Gisin wrote:
> Notice how the Greenies shift from one apocalypse to the next every
> decade? 90s: we're running out of fossil fuels, we're going to die!
> 00s: there are too much fossil fuels, we're going to burn!

cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo


James

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 2:21:18 PM8/26/09
to

And there is also the possibility of abiotic oil lasting forever. :-)

Ouroboros Rex

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 3:31:29 PM8/26/09
to

And pigs flying out of your butt. ;)


T. Keating

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 3:49:25 PM8/26/09
to
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:21:18 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
wrote:

no.. there is ZERO probability of (forever) happening.

Earth's biosphere will be toast (100% dead, oceans boiling) in 500
to 2000 million years from now. (I.E. Steady increase in SOL's energy
output as it ages.)

Perhaps a whole lot sooner if mankind doesn't get it's act together
real soon, and curtail GHG emissions.

Lastly, earth will be toast once SOL expands into it's Red Giant
Phase.

Notes: An eight(8) percent increase in earth's surface temp (to
313K) will exterminate nearly all life forms. Abiotic carbon
compounds are produced in very small quantities

The temperatures required to drive the theorized abiotic reaction
also causes long chain carbon based compunds (oil included) to
decompose very quickly. Let's not forget things like pockets of
molten sulfur and other chemical nasties which make quick work of any
oil like compounds which are produced at depth..

T. Keating

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 4:08:03 PM8/26/09
to
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:44:02 -0700, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com>
wrote:

>Notice how the Greenies shift from one apocalypse to the next every decade?
>90s: we're running out of fossil fuels, we're going to die!
>00s: there are too much fossil fuels, we're going to burn!
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
>
>'Peak Oil' Is a Waste of Energy
>By MICHAEL LYNCH


First... I'll note the following,,
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html

"ll materials contained on this site are protected by United States
copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted,
displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission
of The New York Times Company or in the case of third party materials,
the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content."

Eric do you get written permission from the NY times to post there
content on Usenet?? Why did you remove the 2009 copyright notice??

===

Article contains no supporting scientific facts to support this
clueless economists opinion.

If you want the facts, goto www.theoildrum.com and read all about the
pickle the world's in. I.E. Major oil fields in steep decline, new
discoveries not even close to making up the gap..

Eric Gisin

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 5:08:14 PM8/26/09
to
Stick your head up my ass Timmy, that's were I keep the letter from NYT giving me permission.

Sorry Timmy, this article debunks peak oil and you cannot refute a single paragraph.
Don't point me to some kook site by some greenie death cult praying for the end times.

You are so fucking stupid you make the "no new discovery" claim, read the the article.

"T. Keating" <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:9r4b9595q92of6ab2...@4ax.com...

T. Keating

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 6:25:24 PM8/26/09
to
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:08:14 -0700, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com>
wrote:

>Stick your head up my ass Timmy, that's were I keep the letter from NYT giving me permission.

I relay your response to the NYT.

>Sorry Timmy, this article debunks peak oil and you cannot refute a single paragraph.
>Don't point me to some kook site by some greenie death cult praying for the end times.
>
>You are so fucking stupid you make the "no new discovery" claim, read the the article.

Again article presents NO scientific evidence that newly discovered
fields can come even close to replacing the lost production from the
rapidly declining fields.

That's what Peak oil is all about.. Worldwide Production verses
demand. Once the demand outstrips supply by a significant margin,
oil simply becomes too expensive to burn. Ergo.. The end of cheap oil
and economies based upon that premise.

>
>"T. Keating" <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
>news:9r4b9595q92of6ab2...@4ax.com...
>>
>> First... I'll note the following,,
>> http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html
>>
>> "ll materials contained on this site are protected by United States
>> copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted,
>> displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission
>> of The New York Times Company or in the case of third party materials,
>> the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
>> copyright or other notice from copies of the content."
>>
>> Eric do you get written permission from the NY times to post there
>> content on Usenet?? Why did you remove the 2009 copyright notice??
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Article contains no supporting scientific facts to support this
>> clueless economists opinion.

Repeat, no new facts presented in NYT opinion.

Bret Cahill

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 10:44:21 PM8/26/09
to
> Michael Lynch, the former director for Asian energy and security at the Center for International
> Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is an energy consultant.

That's for the tip.

It's a pump & dump.

Wait a couple days then buy oil futures.


Bret Cahill


Last Post

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 10:45:25 PM8/26/09
to
On Aug 26, 3:49 pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:21:18 -0400, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com>

>
> >And there is also the possibility of abiotic oil lasting forever. :-)
>
> no.. there is ZERO probability of (forever) happening.

•• BULLSHIT!

>     Earth's biosphere will be toast (100% dead, oceans boiling) in 500
> to 2000 million years from now.  (I.E. Steady increase in SOL's energy
> output as it ages.)    

•• Keating is so full of shit it is oozing from every
pore. Where does he think he will be 500 million
years from now?


>
>    Perhaps a whole lot sooner if mankind doesn't get it's act together
> real soon, and curtail GHG emissions.  

•• Anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not matter except as
they improve plant life on earth and emit O2.
photosynthesis ...

•• Crude oil forms as a natural
inorganic process which occurs between the
mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and
20 miles deep.

•• The mechanism is as follows:
• Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found
in quantity throughout our solar system –
huge concentrations exist at great depth in the
Earth.

• At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000
feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams
of compressed methane-based gasses hit
pockets of high temperature causing the
condensation of heavier hydrocarbons.

• The product of this condensation is commonly
known as crude oil.

• Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate
into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural
gas."

• In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically
table regions around the globe, the crude oil
pools into reservoirs.

• In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically
active areas, the oil and natural gas continue
to condense and eventually to oxidize,
producing carbon dioxide and steam, which
exits from active volcanoes.

• Periodically, depending on variations of
geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the
surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand
deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the
continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of
Mexico and Uzbekistan.

• Periodically, depending on variations of
geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free
and replenish existing known reserves of oil.

•• There are a number of observations across the
oil-producing regions of the globe that support
this theory, and the list of proponents begins with
Mendelev (who created the periodic table of
elements) and includes Dr. Thomas Gold (founding
director of Cornell University Center for
Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F.
Kenney of Gas Resources Corp, Houston, Texas.

http://volcanoworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/06

–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

Last Post

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 10:52:37 PM8/26/09
to
On Aug 26, 4:08 pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:44:02 -0700, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Notice how the Greenies shift from one apocalypse to the next every decade?
> >90s: we're running out of fossil fuels, we're going to die!
> >00s: there are too much fossil fuels, we're going to burn!
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=1&pagewante...

>
> >'Peak Oil' Is a Waste of Energy
> >By MICHAEL LYNCH
>
> Article contains no supporting scientific facts to support this
> clueless economists opinion.

•• Talk about clueless –– look in your mirror.

> If you want the facts, gotowww.theoildrum.comand read all about the


> pickle the world's in.   I.E. Major oil fields in steep decline, new
> discoveries not even close to making up the gap..  

•• ROTFLMAO
Everything is exactly opposite to what Keating says.
Wipe the shit out of your eyes and Algore out of your
ears. Learn something.

Rob Dekker

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 3:20:16 AM8/27/09
to
"Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:h73lct$s3q$1...@news.eternal-september.org...


The Department of Energy production numbers show that oil production reached
the peak in 2005, and has since been virtually flat. Even though prices went
through the roof and back, production shows very little flexibility.
We simply can't pump much more oil when prices go up. Prices are determined
by consumption (economic activity) during the past years. That's another
indicator that we may have reached peak production already. If this is the
real Peak Oil, or if there will be a bit higher peak a few years from now,
that we won't know until it happens. If it happens...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentTotalOilSupplyBarrelsperDay.xls

Rob


leona...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 9:21:00 AM8/27/09
to
On Aug 27, 3:20 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h73lct$s3q$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > Notice how the Greenies shift from one apocalypse to the next every
> > decade?
> > 90s: we're running out of fossil fuels, we're going to die!
> > 00s: there are too much fossil fuels, we're going to burn!
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=1&pagewante...
> that we won't know until it happens. If it happens...http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentTotalOilSupplyBarrels...

•• Rob still has no clue about petroleum markets.
Neither does the Obama administration

leona...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 10:09:37 AM8/27/09
to
On Aug 27, 9:21 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
wrote:

•• M. King Hubbert, with the U.S. Geological Survey,
Department Of The Interior. predicted that "The
Worldwide Peak Of Conventional Oil Production"
would take place by the year 2000.

The Oil drum is the organization he founded to
exploit use of the computer model he created.
Of course, a dozen years before his "peak",
science has blown his theories and his model
away.

•• Forget about production numbers, OPEC plays with
them to adjust the price levels.

•• Dekker, Keating and Cahill refuse to recognize
that Peak Oil was originally a domestic forecast,
years before the development of oil production in
Alaska and they have never caught up.

Ouroboros Rex

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 10:30:24 AM8/27/09
to

As usual, lenny just makes some shit up. lol


Ouroboros Rex

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 10:31:28 AM8/27/09
to

As usual, lenny just makes some shit up. lol


Ouroboros Rex

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 10:31:06 AM8/27/09
to
Eric Gisin wrote:
> Stick your head up my ass Timmy, that's were I keep the letter from
> NYT giving me permission.
> Sorry Timmy, this article debunks peak oil and you cannot refute a
> single paragraph. Don't point me to some kook site by some greenie death
> cult praying
> for the end times.
> You are so fucking stupid you make the "no new discovery" claim, read
> the the article.

As usual, greasin just makes some shit up. lol

Ouroboros Rex

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 10:32:21 AM8/27/09
to

As usual, lenny just makes some shit up. lol


BDR529

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 11:25:23 AM8/27/09
to

Following this episode of denial we should therefore maybe never worry
of running out of oil? What happened to Texas, and couldn't this happen
on a global scale? The author is too chicken to admit that natural
deposits are finite and that on the long run we need something else than
oil.

Q

--
Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!

leona...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 12:19:37 PM8/27/09
to
On Aug 27, 11:25 am, BDR529 <jake> wrote:
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > Notice how the Greenies shift from one apocalypse to the next every decade?
> > 90s: we're running out of fossil fuels, we're going to die!
> > 00s: there are too much fossil fuels, we're going to burn!
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=1&pagewante...

•• Jackass Jake is a denialist. He denies every fact he sees.

•• No natural deposits are infinite and we will never run
out of oil. He has not read any of the articles where I
have described how oil has formed and in his
ignorance, he rejects the article above.

•• I daresay, if we drill in a dozen capped wells in Texas
and/or Oklahoma, down 2,000 or so feet, we would
find oil a plenty in 4 of 5 holes.

–– ––

leona...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 12:29:21 PM8/27/09
to
On Aug 27, 12:19 pm, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
wrote:
.o0o.

http://volcanoworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/

Tom P

unread,
Aug 28, 2009, 7:14:36 AM8/28/09
to
Last Post wrote:
> On Aug 26, 3:49 pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:21:18 -0400, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com>
>
>>> And there is also the possibility of abiotic oil lasting forever. :-)
>> no.. there is ZERO probability of (forever) happening.
>
> �� BULLSHIT!

>
>> Earth's biosphere will be toast (100% dead, oceans boiling) in 500
>> to 2000 million years from now. (I.E. Steady increase in SOL's energy
>> output as it ages.)
>
> �� Keating is so full of shit it is oozing from every

> pore. Where does he think he will be 500 million
> years from now?
>> Perhaps a whole lot sooner if mankind doesn't get it's act together
>> real soon, and curtail GHG emissions.
>
> �� Anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not matter except as

> they improve plant life on earth and emit O2.
> photosynthesis ...
>
> �� Crude oil forms as a natural

> inorganic process which occurs between the
> mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and
> 20 miles deep.
>
> �� The mechanism is as follows:
> � Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found
> in quantity throughout our solar system �

> huge concentrations exist at great depth in the
> Earth.
>
> � At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000

> feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams
> of compressed methane-based gasses hit
> pockets of high temperature causing the
> condensation of heavier hydrocarbons.

Rising from where? Somewhere colder? If this reaction takes place at the
mantle-crust interface, why doesn't it take place at a lower level? In
other words, why should be any CH4 in the earth's core at all if heat
supposedly causes it to transform into heavier oils?

In any case, if there really is such a lot of CH4, why is it so that
plant photosynthesis has led to CO2 being removed from the atmosphere
over millions of years? Surely leakage of CH4 from the earth's core
would have resulted in much more carbon in the biosphere than we
actually observe.

>
> � The product of this condensation is commonly
> known as crude oil.
>
> � Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate


> into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural
> gas."
>

> � In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically


> table regions around the globe, the crude oil
> pools into reservoirs.
>

> � In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically


> active areas, the oil and natural gas continue
> to condense and eventually to oxidize,
> producing carbon dioxide and steam, which
> exits from active volcanoes.
>

> � Periodically, depending on variations of


> geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the
> surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand
> deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the
> continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of
> Mexico and Uzbekistan.
>

> � Periodically, depending on variations of


> geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free
> and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
>

> �� There are a number of observations across the


> oil-producing regions of the globe that support
> this theory, and the list of proponents begins with
> Mendelev (who created the periodic table of
> elements) and includes Dr. Thomas Gold (founding
> director of Cornell University Center for
> Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F.
> Kenney of Gas Resources Corp, Houston, Texas.
>
> http://volcanoworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/06
>

> �� ��

leona...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 28, 2009, 2:27:52 PM8/28/09
to
On Aug 28, 7:14 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> Last Post wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 3:49 pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:21:18 -0400, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com>
>
> >>> And there is also the possibility of abiotic oil lasting forever. :-)

> >> no.. there is ZERO probability of (forever) happening.
>

> > •• BULLSHIT!


>
> >>     Earth's biosphere will be toast (100% dead, oceans boiling) in 500
> >> to 2000 million years from now.  (I.E. Steady increase in SOL's energy
> >> output as it ages.)    
>

> > •• Keating is so full of shit it is oozing from every


> >     pore. Where does he think he will be 500 million
> >     years from now?
> >>    Perhaps a whole lot sooner if mankind doesn't get it's act together
> >> real soon, and curtail GHG emissions.  
>

> > •• Anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not matter except as


> >     they improve plant life on earth and emit O2.
> >     photosynthesis ...
>

> > ••  Crude oil forms as a natural


> >      inorganic process which occurs between the
> >      mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and
> >      20 miles deep.
>

> > •• The mechanism is as follows:
> > •   Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found
> >      in quantity throughout our solar system –


> >      huge concentrations exist at great depth in the
> >      Earth.
>

> > • At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000


> >   feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams
> >   of compressed methane-based gasses hit
> >   pockets of high temperature causing the
> >   condensation of heavier hydrocarbons.
>
> Rising from where? Somewhere colder? If this reaction takes place at the
> mantle-crust interface, why doesn't it take place at a lower level? In
> other words, why should be any CH4 in the earth's core at all if heat
> supposedly causes it to transform into heavier oils?

•• Do I really have to spell it out in every detail
like you are a 10 year old? I also didn't mention
that the reaction takes place under 200KBar
pressure. And I didn't tell you it is an ongoing
process. I also did not tell you about the papers
by Dr. Thomas Gold (founding director of


Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and
Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas

Resources Corp, Houston, Texas; or that the
Sa'uds, Russians and Brazillians have proved the
theory. -- Exxon too

> In any case, if there really is such a lot of CH4, why is it so that
> plant photosynthesis has led to CO2 being removed from the atmosphere
> over millions of years?

•• ROTFLMAO~~ childish nonsense

>Surely leakage of CH4 from the earth's core
> would have resulted in much more carbon in the biosphere than we
> actually observe.
>

•• ROTFLMAO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis[α] is a process that converts carbon dioxide into
organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.
[1]

Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria.
Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since it allows
them to create their own food.

In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide
and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product.

Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth.

As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere,
nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy,
or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food.[β]
[2]

The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is immense,
approximately 100 terawatts:[3] which is about six times larger than
the power consumption of human civilization.[4]

As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source of
the carbon in all the organic compounds within
organisms' bodies. In all,
photosynthetic_organisms_convert_ca_100,000,000,000_tonnes_of_carbon_into_biomass_yearly]

Photosynthesis evolved early in the evolutionary history of life, when
all forms of life on Earth were microorganisms and the atmosphere had
much more carbon dioxide. The first photosynthetic organisms probably
evolved about 3,500 million years ago, and used hydrogen or hydrogen
sulfide as sources of electrons, rather than water.[6]

Cyanobacteria appeared later, around 3,000 million years ago, and
changed the Earth forever when they began to oxygenate the atmosphere,
beginning about 2,400 million years ago.[7]

This new atmosphere allowed the evolution of complex life such as
protists. Eventually, about 550 million years ago, one of these
protists formed a symbiotic relationship with a cyanobacterium,
producing the ancestor of the plants and algae.[8]

The chloroplasts in modern plants are the descendants of these ancient
symbiotic cyanobacteria.

2n CO2 + 2n H2O + photons → 2(CH2O)n + 2n O2
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
>
> > • The product of this condensation is commonly
> >    known as crude oil.
>
> > • Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate


> >   into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural
> >   gas."
>

> > • In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically


> >    table regions around the globe, the crude oil
> >    pools into reservoirs.
>

> > • In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically


> >    active areas, the oil and natural gas continue
> >    to condense and eventually to oxidize,
> >    producing carbon dioxide and steam, which
> >    exits from active volcanoes.
>

> > •  Periodically, depending on variations of


> >    geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the
> >    surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand
> >    deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the
> >    continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of
> >    Mexico and Uzbekistan.
>

> > • Periodically, depending on variations of


> >   geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free
> >   and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
>

> > •• There are a number of observations across the


> >     oil-producing regions of the globe that support
> >     this theory, and the list of proponents begins with
> >     Mendelev (who created the periodic table of
> >     elements) and includes Dr. Thomas Gold (founding
> >     director of Cornell University Center for
> >     Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F.
> >     Kenney of Gas Resources Corp, Houston, Texas.
>
> >    http://volcanoworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/06

•• Get a life, kid

––  ––

BDR529

unread,
Aug 29, 2009, 4:51:45 AM8/29/09
to
> �� Jackass Jake is a denialist. He denies every fact he sees.
>
> �� No natural deposits are infinite and we will never run

> out of oil. He has not read any of the articles where I
> have described how oil has formed and in his
> ignorance, he rejects the article above.

Please educate us: if natural deposits are finite then why will we never
run out of oil. This could count as the quote of the week.

Genie, where are you?

Q


>
> �� I daresay, if we drill in a dozen capped wells in Texas


> and/or Oklahoma, down 2,000 or so feet, we would
> find oil a plenty in 4 of 5 holes.
>

> �� ��

Bozo

unread,
Aug 29, 2009, 5:15:24 AM8/29/09
to
BDR529 wrote

> Please educate us: if natural deposits are finite then why will we never
> run out of oil. This could count as the quote of the week.
>

Oil comes from not old trees and carbon of natural causes, it comes from rocks.

And Rudy Diesel invented the first internal combustion engine for an automobile, and
didn't run it on peanut oil.

Actually, Rudy's car at the World Expo in Chicago ran on peanut oil, and what
trashed the whole notion of what we now refer to as "renewable fuel" was because in
1857, they struck oil in Ontario, and suddenly oil from the ground was cheap and
plentiful.

And now? Running a car on Peanut Oil or French Fry oil using the Diesel process is
called being an "Enviro Nazi".

And I'm not a beginner. The Peugeout 908 LeMans winner versus the Audi R10 are
worth discussing. Both are state of the art Diesls that are far superior than
their gasoline counterparts.


The future of cars because for now, Diesels are a bridge to non carbon tech.


And the assholes who think otherwise? They say that Audi and Peugeout are dreaming
in clowds. That's because they have no idea. They probably don't even know what
KERs is, and where it came from.

But that's another story.


leona...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 29, 2009, 2:34:58 PM8/29/09
to

•• And some bureaucratic jackass wanted to assess
highway tax on the fry oil the old guy used to get
to the doctor. (No highway added)

Robert Baer

unread,
Aug 29, 2009, 9:56:54 PM8/29/09
to

Since when does peanut oil have no carbon?

I M @ good guy

unread,
Aug 29, 2009, 11:31:13 PM8/29/09
to

It has no fossil carbon, the carbon came from
the atmosphere, and the hydrogen came from water,
meaning all vegetation is carbon neutral, as is all
gases from animals who eat the vegetation.

This shows how silly some of the claims being
made about cattle and ethanol are.

BDR529

unread,
Aug 30, 2009, 4:51:06 AM8/30/09
to

Trivia 37 spotted.

leona...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 30, 2009, 10:36:56 AM8/30/09
to

•• There is no such thing as "fossil carbon".
ALL petroleum, natural gas, and coal are
derived naturally from methane at high
temperatures and under 200 KBar pressure.
The "fossils" found in the shallow wells were
there before the oil. The oil and gas from the
deeper wells are fossil free as in "abiotic".

–– ––
Global warming is a myth and does not exist. On  
the other hand "Climate Change" is functioning  
as it has for 5 million years or more.

I M @ good guy

unread,
Aug 30, 2009, 3:11:22 PM8/30/09
to

If that were completely true, it wouldn't matter,
using oil, coal and natural gas releases added CO2
into the atmosphere, burning vegetation does not,
all vegetation came from the biosphere.

Don't get too goofy with the abiotic oil nonsense,
while some oil and some natural gas may be created
constantly that way, there has to be some residue
from hydrocarbons buried or submerged, it could
not have combusted in the absence of oxygen.

And that residue is almost certainly coal,
and probably a lot of oil, natural gas, and methane.

Last Post

unread,
Aug 30, 2009, 3:34:20 PM8/30/09
to
On Aug 30, 3:11 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:36:56 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"

•• Bullshit does not make the grass grow green,
but you are full of it.


>
>         Don't get too goofy with the abiotic oil nonsense,
> while some oil and some natural gas may be created
> constantly that way, there has to be some residue
> from hydrocarbons buried or submerged, it could
> not have combusted in the absence of oxygen.

•• More scientific ignorance from a bad guy. You
are making ZERO sense

>          And that residue is almost certainly coal,
> and probably a lot of oil, natural gas, and methane.

•• More stupidity.

Crude oil forms as a natural
inorganic process which occurs between the
mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and
20 miles deep.

The mechanism is as follows:
• Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found
in quantity throughout our solar system –
huge concentrations exist at great depth in the
Earth.

• At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000
feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams
of compressed methane-based gasses hit
pockets of high temperature causing the
condensation of heavier hydrocarbons.

• The product of this condensation is commonly
known as crude oil.

http://volcanoworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/


Read "The Deep Hot Biosphere," where Dr. Thomas Gold
presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation.
He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all
correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard
depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated
fossils or even current surface life.

He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from
the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry
does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also
interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities
among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric
life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of
oil.

–– ––

tubaplayer

unread,
Aug 30, 2009, 4:37:13 PM8/30/09
to
>     Mendelevhttp://volcanoworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/

>
> Read "The Deep Hot Biosphere," where Dr. Thomas Gold
> presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation.
> He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all
> correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard
> depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated
> fossils or even current surface life.
>
> He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from
> the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry
> does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also
> interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities
> among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric
> life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of
> oil.
>
> ––  ––
> In real science the burden of proof is always on
> the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> they provided data that climate change is being
> effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> natural phenomena.

"At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000


feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams
of compressed methane-based gasses hit
pockets of high temperature causing the
condensation of heavier hydrocarbons."

Rarely have I had the priviledge of reading such utter bollocks. In
the world of physics that I know anything hitting a pocket of higher
temperature would either evaporate - NOT condense, or it would
dissociate into lighter, NOT heavier, compounds.

Last Post

unread,
Aug 30, 2009, 5:33:01 PM8/30/09
to

•• Indeed I have "Rarely have I had the priviledge [sic]
of reading such utter bollocks". If you had really read
the article you might have noticed "200KBar".
I would guess you are ignorant of the term K Bar.
I suggest you look it up.

—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the religious fanatic

If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."

3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years

There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.

Last Post

unread,
Aug 30, 2009, 7:06:29 PM8/30/09
to
On Aug 26, 6:25 pm, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:08:14 -0700, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Stick your head up my ass Timmy, that's were I keep the letter from NYT giving me permission.
>
> I relay your response to the NYT.  

>
> >Sorry Timmy, this article debunks peak oil and you cannot refute a single paragraph.
> >Don't point me to some kook site by some greenie death cult praying for the end times.
>
> >You are so fucking stupid you make the "no new discovery" claim, read the the article.
>
> Again article presents NO scientific evidence that newly discovered
> fields can come even close to replacing the lost production from the
> rapidly declining fields.
>
> That's what Peak oil is all about..  Worldwide Production verses
> demand.    Once the demand outstrips supply by a significant margin,
> oil simply becomes too expensive to burn.  Ergo.. The end of cheap oil
> and economies based upon that premise.
>
> >"T. Keating" <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message

> >news:9r4b9595q92of6ab2...@4ax.com...
>
> >> First...  I'll note the following,,
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html
>
> >> Article contains no supporting scientific facts to support this
> >> clueless economists opinion.
>
> Repeat, no new facts presented in NYT opinion.
>
> >> If you want the facts, gotowww.theoildrum.comand read all about the

> >> pickle the world's in.   I.E. Major oil fields in steep decline, new
> >> discoveries not even close to making up the gap..

•• The Oildrum is King Hubbert's site which worked
sorta as long as it only dealt with Texas and
Oklahoma where they could get weekly stats for their
model. When they went global they started to fall off
the rails. In the 80's the Sa'uds and Russians, neither
provide reserve stats, were working with a lot of wells
using water pressure to keep the oil flowing.

•• In the 80's Dr Thomas Gold with a team of Russian
scientists hypothesized that petroleum was created
between the crust and earth's mantle. In 1988, Gold
issued his research paper which "Science" rejected
but was published in the National Academy of
Science "Proceedings" as was that of Dr. J.F. Kenney.

Meanwhile, the Sa'uds and Russians were drilling in
their dry or almost dry holes and now have established
reserves greater than ever before. Meanwhile, the API
(American Petroleum Inst) scheduled a conference on
Golds's and Kenney's research. It was cancelled at the
last minute without any excuse.

The Sa'uds, Russians and Brazilians paid attention and
the three are reaping huge dividends.

At least once a month the estimated reserves from Tupi
(the first test well in midAtlantic) gets raised by a factor
of 10 abnd counting.

•• A sign of Peak Oils failure, is their web page where they
are begging for donations

Robert Baer

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 1:17:00 AM8/31/09
to
Well, excuse me!
Except for captured meteors, all carbon in oil, etc came from the
earth, which in your terms makes that "carbon neutral".

Robert Baer

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 1:20:27 AM8/31/09
to
Really?? "burning vegetation does not release CO2"??
Do you know anything about chemistry??

Robert Baer

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 1:22:25 AM8/31/09
to
>>>> �� There is no such thing as "fossil carbon".

>>>> ALL petroleum, natural gas, and coal are
>>>> derived naturally from methane at high
>>>> temperatures and under 200 KBar pressure.
>>>> The "fossils" found in the shallow wells were
>>>> there before the oil. The oil and gas from the
>>>> deeper wells are fossil free as in "abiotic".
>>> If that were completely true, it wouldn't matter,
>>> using oil, coal and natural gas releases added CO2
>>> into the atmosphere, burning vegetation does not,
>>> all vegetation came from the biosphere.
>> �� Bullshit does not make the grass grow green,

>> but you are full of it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Don't get too goofy with the abiotic oil nonsense,
>>> while some oil and some natural gas may be created
>>> constantly that way, there has to be some residue
>>> from hydrocarbons buried or submerged, it could
>>> not have combusted in the absence of oxygen.
>> �� More scientific ignorance from a bad guy. You

>> are making ZERO sense
>>
>>> And that residue is almost certainly coal,
>>> and probably a lot of oil, natural gas, and methane.
>> �� More stupidity.

>>
>> Crude oil forms as a natural
>> inorganic process which occurs between the
>> mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and
>> 20 miles deep.
>>
>> The mechanism is as follows:
>> � Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found
>> in quantity throughout our solar system �

>> huge concentrations exist at great depth in the
>> Earth.
>>
>> � At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000

>> feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams
>> of compressed methane-based gasses hit
>> pockets of high temperature causing the
>> condensation of heavier hydrocarbons.
>>
>> � The product of this condensation is commonly
>> known as crude oil.
>>
>> � Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate

>> into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural
>> gas."
>>
>> � In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically

>> table regions around the globe, the crude oil
>> pools into reservoirs.
>>
>> � In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically

>> active areas, the oil and natural gas continue
>> to condense and eventually to oxidize,
>> producing carbon dioxide and steam, which
>> exits from active volcanoes.
>>
>> � Periodically, depending on variations of

>> geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the
>> surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand
>> deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the
>> continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of
>> Mexico and Uzbekistan.
>>
>> � Periodically, depending on variations of

>> geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free
>> and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
>>
>> �� There are a number of observations across the

>> oil-producing regions of the globe that support
>> this theory, and the list of proponents begins with
>> Mendelevhttp://volcanoworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/
>>
>> Read "The Deep Hot Biosphere," where Dr. Thomas Gold
>> presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation.
>> He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all
>> correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard
>> depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated
>> fossils or even current surface life.
>>
>> He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from
>> the same oil field have the same chemistry � oil chemistry

>> does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also
>> interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities
>> among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric
>> life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of
>> oil.
>>
>> �� ��

>> In real science the burden of proof is always on
>> the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
>> neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
>> iota of valid data for global warming nor have
>> they provided data that climate change is being
>> effected by commerce and industry, and not by
>> natural phenomena.
>
> "At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000
> feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams
> of compressed methane-based gasses hit
> pockets of high temperature causing the
> condensation of heavier hydrocarbons."
>
> Rarely have I had the priviledge of reading such utter bollocks. In
> the world of physics that I know anything hitting a pocket of higher
> temperature would either evaporate - NOT condense, or it would
> dissociate into lighter, NOT heavier, compounds.
Check, double check and triple check!

I M @ good guy

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 5:51:12 AM8/31/09
to
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:17:00 -0700, Robert Baer
<rober...@localnet.com> wrote:

No, did you just get here, the science accepted by all those
that understand the problem of additional atmospheric CO2, only
carbon that has been buried or submerged for many years adds
CO2 to the atmosphere that wasn't there in the last few hundred
years.

This isn't "all carbon is bad", it is about a rational
discussion of the carbon in the atmosphere, along with
the free CO2 in the ocean.

Hopefully all legislatures will understand the problem
and not pass ridiculous laws on the basis of gossip.

Last Post

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 10:43:50 AM8/31/09
to

** Total bullshit

** ROTFLMAO
You are not much "@ good guy"
There is NO "problem of additional atmospheric CO2"
All 'additional' CO2 comes from volcanic activity.

|* In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically


| active areas, the oil and natural gas continue
| to condense and eventually to oxidize,
| producing carbon dioxide and steam, which
| exits from active volcanoes.

> This isn't "all carbon is bad", it is about a rational


> discussion of the carbon in the atmosphere, along with
> the free CO2 in the ocean.

** The free CO2 in the ocean comes from underwater
volcanos and gets transferred to the clouds by
convection from the warm oceans and returned to the
surface where it, by photosynthesis, grows plant life
and emits O2 for us to breathe.

In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses
carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste
product.

Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth.

As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the
atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly
as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source
of the energy in their food.[β][2]

The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is
immense, approximately 100 terawatts:[3] which is
about six times larger than the power consumption
of human civilization.[4]

As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source
of the carbon in all the organic compounds within

organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms
convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon
into biomass per year.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

If you have been reading my posts for a few
months you should know this by now.

-- --

Robert Baer

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 2:45:24 PM8/31/09
to
Wonderful! You limit to last few hundred years. So then i can limit t
last few hundreds seconds and thereby damn your exhalations..

I M @ good guy

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 4:15:28 PM8/31/09
to

>of the energy in their food.[â][2]


>
>The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is
>immense, approximately 100 terawatts:[3] which is
>about six times larger than the power consumption
>of human civilization.[4]
>
>As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source
>of the carbon in all the organic compounds within
>organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms
>convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon
>into biomass per year.[5]
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
>
>If you have been reading my posts for a few
>months you should know this by now.

I know on the subject of added CO2, you are
as nutty as any of the AGW nutcases, only in the
opposite direction.

Burning fossil fuel creates CO2 with carbon
that hasn't been the atmosphere for many, many
thousands of years, what nature does is beside
the question.

I do not claim added CO2 causes warming,
in fact, I suspect added CO2 may cause minor
cooling, because GHGs are the only thing that
cools the atmosphere.

Any anti-AGW position other than this is
likely without merit.


Last Post

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 4:18:10 PM8/31/09
to
On Aug 31, 1:20 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
> I M @ good guy wrote:
>

•• All crude, natural gas and coal is abiotic and is formed
from methane under high pressure (200KBar) and
temperature (450° C) btween the crust and the mantle.

> > while some oil and some natural gas may be created
> > constantly that way,

•• ALL OIL and GAS is/was formed that way, do you
understand what I say? ALL OIL and GAS is/was
formed that way

All crude, natural gas and coal is abiotic and is formed
from methane under high pressure (200KBar) and
temperature (450° C) btween the crust and the mantle.


there has to be some residue
> > from hydrocarbons buried or submerged,

•• You fools, I already told IM that once today, toy are
picking hairs from your balls and not making one iota
of sense. I know the oil business. What I didn't learn
in school, I learned from Amoco et al.


"there has to be some residue"

it could


> > not have combusted in the absence of oxygen.

•• If it was combusted it would no longer exist.


>
> >          And that residue is almost certainly coal,
> > and probably a lot of oil, natural gas, and methane.


>    Really?? "burning vegetation does not release CO2"??
>    Do you know anything about chemistry??

•• So what! It goes right back into plant growth

I M @ good guy

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 4:36:07 PM8/31/09
to
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:45:24 -0700, Robert Baer
<rober...@localnet.com> wrote:

Look, this isn't about me, or what I think, "fossil" means
ages old, I only used the few hundred years to cover wood,
vegetable and animal remains that have been preserved,
they are not considered to be fossils.

Why don't you research the science, learn what
fossil fuels mean, and leave me alone, I enjoy rational
discussions, not some way out presumption that any
carbon burned is bad.


Last Post

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 5:11:02 PM8/31/09
to

•• You nothing at all. Without sufficient CO2 in
our atmosphere we will all die. If not from lack
of oxygen then from starvation because nothing
will grow. Photosynthetic organisms convert


around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon into

biomass per year. For every tonne of converted
carbon, 2 tonnes of oxygen are reloeased into
the air.

The biggest source of CO2 is volcanic activity
We need 'new' CO2 on a regular basis since
much of the free CO2 goes into growing trees.
Here in the Northern Hemisphere we have the
greatest need for CO2 and the least emissions.
In autumn that will reverse and our excess
emissions will automagically move south.


>
>         Burning fossil fuel creates CO2 with carbon
> that hasn't been the atmosphere for many, many
> thousands of years, what nature does is beside
> the question.

•• But as I spelled out above, new carbon is needed
to replace the 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon
that has been converted into biomass per year.


>
>        I do not claim added CO2 causes warming,
> in fact, I suspect added CO2 may cause minor
> cooling, because GHGs are the only thing that
> cools the atmosphere.
>

•• Not True! The sun's orbit and the sun spots
regulate our climates

daestrom

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 8:11:15 PM8/31/09
to

Regardless of the pressure, it is well established that high
temperatures break down complex hydrocarbons into simpler ones. Thermal
cracking was used for years to just this end.

With very few exceptions, none of T. Gold's predictions about where to
find abiotic oil have been born out. His work has been discussed and
refuted by many and supported by very little evidence.

daestrom

Bill Ward

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 9:50:23 PM8/31/09
to

Apparently that doesn't hold at high pressures:

<http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm>

<begin excerpt>

Experiments to demonstrate the high-pressure genesis of petroleum
hydrocarbons have been carried out using only 99.9% pure, solid iron
oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, wet with triple-distilled water. There
were no biotic compounds or hydrocarbons admitted to the reaction chamber.

[omit experimental details...]

At pressures below 10 kbar, no hydrocarbons heavier than methane were
present. Hydrocarbon molecules began to evolve above 30 kbar. At 50 kbar
and at the temperature of 1500°C, the system spontaneously evolved
methane, ethane, n-propane, 2-methylpropane, 2,2-dimethylpropane, n-
butane, 2-methylbutane, n-pentane, 2-methylpentane, n-hexane, and n-
alkanes through C10H22, ethene, n-propene, n-butene, and n-pentene, in
distributions characteristic of natural petroleum. The cumulative
abundances of the subset of evolved hydrocarbons consisting of methane
and n-alkanes through n-C6H14 are shown in Fig. 3 as functions of
temperature. Methane (on the right scale) is present and of abundance
approximately an order of magnitude greater than any single component of
the heavier n-alkanes, although as a minor component of the total H-C
system. That the extent of hydrocarbon evolution becomes relatively
stable as a function of temperature above approximately 900°C, both for
the absolute abundance of the individual hydrocarbon species as well as
for their relative abundances, argues that the distributions observed
represent thermodynamic equilibrium for the H-C system. That the evolved
hydrocarbons remain stable over a range of temperatures increasing by
more than 300 K demonstrates the third prediction of the theoretical
analysis: Hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane do not decompose
with increasing temperature in the high-pressure regime of their genesis.

<end excerpt>


>
> With very few exceptions, none of T. Gold's predictions about where to
> find abiotic oil have been born out. His work has been discussed and
> refuted by many and supported by very little evidence.
>
> daestrom

It depends on what credence you give to Russian experimental claims...

I M @ good guy

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 10:56:54 PM8/31/09
to

There is a problem with your reference, including pure
iron would seem to be more of a synthetic process, removing
oxygen, which is what is done in some synthetic processes,
then heat is needed to drive off the oxygen to use the iron
again.

But you are right at the same temperatures, at higher
pressures (much higher), other molecules will form, only
I am a skeptical of Last Post's "200Kbar".

While abiotic may exist, things like peat, and layering
of coal really does not support the "all" abiotic thesis.

Regardless, there is probably a lot more oil in
the ground in most areas where some was taken out,
time helps the drainage and pooling process.

This gossip of abiotic is well known to oil geologists
who look for evidence, and find the opposite, precise
data on where and what the oil and coal came from.

Natural gas may be a different story, the high methane
content and the relative depth where gas is found may need
more explaining, gas would seem to be above the other
carbons, and some places it may be.


Last Post

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 11:16:35 PM8/31/09
to

•• So what!!!


>
> With very few exceptions, none of T. Gold's predictions about where to
> find abiotic oil have been born out.  His work has been discussed and
> refuted by many and supported by very little evidence.

•• You are dead wrong. The API scheduled a
seminar on Gold's paper but cancelled it at
the last minute. It has never been rescheduled.
Meanwhile the Sa'uds and the Russians have
proceeded with deep wells and no longer use
water extraction. Then there is Tupi ...

•• BTW there is a well in the Gulf of Mexico that
was fading out when suddenly new oil appeared
under greater pressure and volume than ever
before.

•• Next time check your facts before you open
your yap.

——  ——

Last Post

unread,
Aug 31, 2009, 11:49:41 PM8/31/09
to

•• Nonsense -- there is no oxygen in the mantle


>
>          But you are right at the same temperatures, at higher
> pressures (much higher), other molecules will form, only
> I am a skeptical of Last Post's "200Kbar".

•• Be as sceptical as you like. I have the facts


>         While abiotic may exist, things like peat, and layering
> of coal really does not support the "all" abiotic thesis.

•• Nonsense

>          Regardless, there is probably a lot more oil in
> the ground in most areas where some was taken out,
> time helps the drainage and pooling process.

•• More nonsense

>         This gossip of abiotic is well known to oil geologists
> who look for evidence, and find the opposite, precise
> data on where and what the oil and coal came from.

•• They do not want to find the evidence because it would
trash their life's work

>         Natural gas may be a different story, the high methane
> content and the relative depth where gas is found may need
> more explaining, gas would seem to be above the other
> carbons, and some places it may be.

•• Crude, nat gas, and coal are created from methane, case closed

•• You are straining at gnats to prove me wrong
but you will always fail, because I make sure
of my facts and in this case you are bucking up
against an old oil man, and I have kept in touch.

•• You claim to be a good guy, but your claim fails,
badly. Your post is full of 'ifs' and 'maybes', just
like the AGW alarmists and IPCC. Their thesis
fails of its own weight and so does yours.

•• BTW all the physicists connected with King
Hubbert would do anything they can to block
Golds now proven theory but they do not have
a case

Rob Dekker

unread,
Sep 1, 2009, 1:43:13 AM9/1/09
to

"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:89644022-eec7-4ad4...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 31, 10:56 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:50:23 -0500, Bill Ward
.....

> >
> > But you are right at the same temperatures, at higher
> > pressures (much higher), other molecules will form, only
> > I am a skeptical of Last Post's "200Kbar".
>
> �� Be as sceptical as you like. I have the facts

In real science, the burden of proof is on the proposer, never on the
sceptic.
Why can't you show us the facts ?

> > While abiotic may exist, things like peat, and layering
> > of coal really does not support the "all" abiotic thesis.
>
> �� Nonsense

Natural gas extraction carries the (geochemical isotope) signature of 0.02%
abiotic origin.
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7052010
There is no (isotope or any other) evidence at any abiotic oil at all.

So if you claim that all fossil fuels are abiotic, then better come up with
the evidence of the remaining 99.98 % of natural gas and the remaining 100 %
of abiotic oil.

....


> > This gossip of abiotic is well known to oil geologists
> > who look for evidence, and find the opposite, precise
> > data on where and what the oil and coal came from.
>
> �� They do not want to find the evidence because it would
> trash their life's work

Are you kidding ? Anyone finding evidence of virtually unlimited supplies of
oil would make the history books !
Unfortunately, there in no evidence for any quantities of abiotic oil in the
Earth's crust. Just biotic oil.

....
> �� You are straining at gnats to prove me wrong


> but you will always fail, because I make sure
> of my facts and in this case you are bucking up
> against an old oil man, and I have kept in touch.

OK old man, let's call your bluff. If you kept in touch, then where is the
evidence for your theory ?

> �� BTW all the physicists connected with King


> Hubbert would do anything they can to block
> Golds now proven theory but they do not have
> a case

Gold's proven theory ? Where is the 99.98 % missing evidence ?

> In real science the burden of proof is always on
> the proposer, never on the sceptics.

You got that right !

Rob


I M @ good guy

unread,
Sep 1, 2009, 4:34:10 AM9/1/09
to
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:43:13 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com>
wrote:

>"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>news:89644022-eec7-4ad4...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 31, 10:56 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>> > But you are right at the same temperatures, at higher
>> > pressures (much higher), other molecules will form, only
>> > I am a skeptical of Last Post's "200Kbar".
>>

>> ? Be as sceptical as you like. I have the facts


>
>In real science, the burden of proof is on the proposer, never on the
>sceptic.
>Why can't you show us the facts ?

Both of you are taking the extremist view that it has
to be all of one and none of the other.

>> > While abiotic may exist, things like peat, and layering
>> > of coal really does not support the "all" abiotic thesis.
>>

>> ? Nonsense


>
>Natural gas extraction carries the (geochemical isotope) signature of 0.02%
>abiotic origin.
>http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7052010
>There is no (isotope or any other) evidence at any abiotic oil at all.
>
>So if you claim that all fossil fuels are abiotic, then better come up with
>the evidence of the remaining 99.98 % of natural gas and the remaining 100 %
>of abiotic oil.

There certainly is some question of whether some hydrocarbons
are abiogenic (in quantity), or not.

>> > This gossip of abiotic is well known to oil geologists
>> > who look for evidence, and find the opposite, precise
>> > data on where and what the oil and coal came from.
>>

>> ? They do not want to find the evidence because it would


>> trash their life's work
>
>Are you kidding ? Anyone finding evidence of virtually unlimited supplies of
>oil would make the history books !
>Unfortunately, there in no evidence for any quantities of abiotic oil in the
>Earth's crust. Just biotic oil.

If abiogenic oil were being produced, it would likely
occur where the hot gases contact water bearing rock.

While volcanos do release hydrocarbons, there
doesn't seem to be much real quantity, but there is
apparently some methane and hydrogen venting;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131151856.htm


>> ? You are straining at gnats to prove me wrong


>> but you will always fail, because I make sure
>> of my facts and in this case you are bucking up
>> against an old oil man, and I have kept in touch.
>
>OK old man, let's call your bluff. If you kept in touch, then where is the
>evidence for your theory ?

On the way to a doctorate, the idea of either-or
must be abandoned.


>> ? BTW all the physicists connected with King
>> Hubbert would do anything they can to block
>> Golds now proven theory but they do not have
>> a case
>
>Gold's proven theory ? Where is the 99.98 % missing evidence ?
>
>> In real science the burden of proof is always on
>> the proposer, never on the sceptics.
>
>You got that right !
>
>Rob

As deeper wells are drilled, more will be known,
but chances are the limits are being approached.

Regardless of how much oil is abiogenic or not,
peak oil may be valid because the large pools took
millions of years to form.

Abiotic oil is just an interesting side of geochemistry,
possibly only useful in encouraging deeper drilling.

Last Post

unread,
Sep 1, 2009, 10:32:46 AM9/1/09
to
On Sep 1, 1:43 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message

>
> news:89644022-eec7-4ad4...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 31, 10:56 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:50:23 -0500, Bill Ward
> .....
>
> > > But you are right at the same temperatures, at higher
> > > pressures (much higher), other molecules will form, only
> > > I am a skeptical of Last Post's "200Kbar".
>
> > •• Be as sceptical as you like. I have the facts
>
> In real science, the burden of proof is on the proposer, never on the
> sceptic.
> Why can't you show us the facts ?
>
> > > While abiotic may exist, things like peat, and layering
> > > of coal really does not support the "all" abiotic thesis.
>
> > •• Nonsense
>
> Natural gas extraction carries the (geochemical isotope) signature of 0.02%
> abiotic origin.http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7052010
•• All the evidence is out in the field right now.
20 years ago Putin was trying to buy oil from
Saddam because his Caucasus oil wells were
on water extraction, an expensive process. The
same in Saudi Arabia. So howcome those same
fields have more oil than they can pump. Then
there is Tupi ...
How about Eugene Island close to home?

•• Dekker you can not win for losing.

Last Post

unread,
Sep 1, 2009, 11:30:51 AM9/1/09
to
On Sep 1, 4:34 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:43:13 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message

•• "peak oil" is the name of an early computer
model designed to calculate the reserves in
the continental 48 states. At that time oil
imports were on a quota basis

•• "peak oil_may_be_valid = the same "if" and
"maybe" used by global warming proponents
including IPCC. Everything is guesswork
but not a scintilla of proof.

•• Russia and Arabia hide their stats, but Russia
could not supply their own country much less
much of Europe with what they had before.
Nor could Arabia meet their contracts, but last
year the Saudi Oil Minister admitted on 60
minutes that they had maximised their
production and had more "deep" wells about
to come on line.
•• Do you know what abiotic means? Of course
not!! Abiotic is a fancy term for "inorganic".
Mendelev knew it is inorganic but too many
others were teaching otherwise.

Too many of you young fools are vested in
proving that global warming exists. It does not!
Now the same fools are trying to pass another
doomsday which in 50 or 100 years we will run
out of oil.
It_just_will_not_happen.

Last Post

unread,
Sep 1, 2009, 12:06:57 PM9/1/09
to
On Sep 1, 4:34 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:43:13 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message

•• ROTFLMAO
In Tupi the reserves estimate has been escalated
several times toward stratospheric numbers.

In adjacent sites, Petrobras, Exxon, Arabia
National, China and BP have been drilling 5
miles below the surface, and five miles through
the crust. If they did not have expectations of
bonanzas ... These people are no fools, and they
know what they are doing, better than you or I.

•• IM, Cahill, Dekker, BDR, RichPissypants and ,
TomP, all AGW alarmist fools posting "ifs" and
"may" and "maybes" and hoping that next year
will reverse the 10 year cooling trend.

Lotsa luck, fools. Your string is running out.

–– ––


In real science the burden of proof is always on

the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far

Rob Dekker

unread,
Sep 2, 2009, 6:03:37 AM9/2/09
to

"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:9klp95tuq3t6b2erc...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:43:13 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>>news:89644022-eec7-4ad4...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 31, 10:56 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>>> > But you are right at the same temperatures, at higher
>>> > pressures (much higher), other molecules will form, only
>>> > I am a skeptical of Last Post's "200Kbar".
>>>
>>> ? Be as sceptical as you like. I have the facts
>>
>>In real science, the burden of proof is on the proposer, never on the
>>sceptic.
>>Why can't you show us the facts ?
>
> Both of you are taking the extremist view that it has
> to be all of one and none of the other.

You may have misunderstood my comment.

I think here is enough evidence that abiogenic hydrocarbons exist, and the
chemical experiments by the Russians show and example of an abiogenic
process. Even without that, lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan show (non)living
proof.

I also do not dispute that the Earth crust may (will) contain some abiogenic
hydrocarbons.

What I dispute is that abiogenic hydrocarbons are present in the Earth's
crust in the quantities that Leonard proposes, to the extend that Peak Oil
would even be a non-issue.

There are simply no facts nor evidence to support that theory.


.....


> As deeper wells are drilled, more will be known,
> but chances are the limits are being approached.
>
> Regardless of how much oil is abiogenic or not,
> peak oil may be valid because the large pools took
> millions of years to form.
>
> Abiotic oil is just an interesting side of geochemistry,
> possibly only useful in encouraging deeper drilling.
>
>

Agreed.
As a side-note, once we are able to drill 10km deep holes in the crust on a
regular basis, then we may not even need the oil that is there (or not). We
could simply live off geothermal energy....

>
>
>


Last Post

unread,
Sep 2, 2009, 9:58:09 AM9/2/09
to
On Sep 2, 6:03 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in messagenews:9klp95tuq3t6b2erc...@4ax.com...

> >          Both of you are taking the extremist view that it has


> > to be all of one and none of the other.

•• And you are an ignorant twit. You have no proof
of anything but you are rushing to deny the facts
presented. That makes both you, Cahill, Dekker,
and a few others in this thread DENIALISTS.

> You may have misunderstood my comment.
>
> I think here is enough evidence that abiogenic hydrocarbons exist, and the
> chemical experiments by the Russians show and example of an abiogenic
> process. Even without that, lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan show (non)living
> proof.

•• ROTFLMAO

> I also do not dispute that the Earth crust may (will) contain some abiogenic
> hydrocarbons.
>
> What I dispute is that abiogenic hydrocarbons are present in the Earth's
> crust in the quantities that Leonard proposes, to the extend that Peak Oil
> would even be a non-issue.
>
> There are simply no facts nor evidence to support that theory.
>

•• BULLSHIT. It ceased to be a "theory"
almost 20 years ago.


>
> >         As deeper wells are drilled, more will be known,
> > but chances are the limits are being approached.

•• Where did you dredge up that bit of stupidity???

> >         Regardless of how much oil is abiogenic or not,
> > peak oil may be valid because the large pools took
> > millions of years to form.

•• You keep on repeating that stupid bit of
denialist nonsense

> Agreed.
> As a side-note, once we are able to drill 10km deep holes in the crust on a
> regular basis, then we may not even need the oil that is there (or not). We
> could simply live off geothermal energy....

•• More stupid denialist bullshit. Well perhaps not
in the next interglacial period 100,000 years
from now.

–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far

0 new messages