And they act accordingly. Another analogy: I am the CEO of a company with no earnings, but our stock is flying high like a hotair ballon. I have a shitload of stock options. Oh yes, we cooked the accounting books... Do you really think I will be honest about the company's future? My rational selfinterest will make me lie like hell. I actually never agreed to this assumption. I am not sure where did you get this that they are driving it down. They MIGHT say that they are interested in lower oilprices, but that doesn't mean it is true. Actually, it is. Simple common sense tells us that when we are continuously using a limited resource, that resource will run out eventually, thus there has to be a time when we already used up half of it. Hello peak oil, peak coal, peak anything limited.... P.S.: You and I are on a tiny island 2000 miles from civilization with 1 keg of beer. We start to drink. What does common sense tell you about the state of the quantity of the beer?
MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF UNDISCOVERED OIL FROM IMPACT CRATERS This keeps falling on deaf ears, but we will try again. The PEAK OIL clans hear nothing but what they continue to say. Well here is one of SEVERAL MORE THEORIES, THAT WE COULD HVAE MORE OIL THAN WE COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE: Where does oil come from? "Rock oil originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the sediments which, under the influence of increased temperature and pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time transform into rock oil" -- M.V. Lomonosov 1757AD. Maybe it's time to change the textbooks. For two centuries Lomonosov's simple and compelling theory on the origin of oil went unchallenged. It meant, of course, that the world would run out of this fuel once the rare sedimentary rocks that contained the bodies of animals were drained of oil. It also meant that so-called basement rocks, which had never been near the surface of the Earth, would not bear oil. The Russians decided to try something different. In the 1950s, perhaps due to the pressures of the Cold War, they started to hunt for oil according to a new theory -- most oil occurred naturally, deep within the Earth's crust, and had nothing to do with rotting organisms. That hunt has been highly successful, and the former Soviet states have many commercial oil wells apparently producing from deep basement rocks. Tom Gold, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Cornell University, supports the Russian idea. In his book The Deep, Hot Biosphere, Gold discusses the discovery of life deep within the Earth' s crust. He argues that most oil and gas could only have come from non-biological sources much deeper underground. According to this theory, the natural traps formed by impact formations will be even more promising as places to look for oil because the "source rocks" containing the oil are everywhere. Liquid gold in the rubble of an impact crater Wham! 65 million years ago a huge asteroid hit the Earth in a shallow sea off the coast of Mexico. A crater perhaps 150 miles or more across was briefly formed in the seafloor and chunks of rock were scattered in mile-thick layers for hundreds of miles in all directions. Tsunami from the impact churned up more piles of broken rocks on coastlines thousands of miles away. Over time, layers of sediment covered the impact scars and they lay undisturbed for millions of years. Then, only several decades ago, prospectors started looking for oil in the region, unaware that the Chicxulub crater lay buried deep beneath them. They were very successful, and commercial oil production began. But it was not until 1990 that the signs of a crater were recognized. The rubble from that impact is now thought to be the source of most of Mexico's vast oil reserves. Geologists are beginning to see that impact crater formations make good traps for oil. How it gets there Oil from deep underground gradually works its way upward through cracks and fissures in rocks. Oil prospectors get excited if the "reservoir rocks" that contain the oil are covered by a contorted layer of "cap rocks" because this can confine oil in natural reservoirs. An oil well is usually drilled until it breaks through the cap rocks and reaches the oil-saturated reservoir rocks below. The rubble from an impact often forms a porous rock known as breccia that is full of cracks and fissures -- making it excellent for extracting oil through a well. Domes, basins, deep cracks, along with crumpled, folded landforms are other typical features of an impact crater that make them promising for oil prospectors. There are hundreds of thousands of oil wells in the United States, but only a dozen or so are known to be associated with impact structures. Like Chicxulub, none of the craters were discovered until after commercial production of oil began. Geologist Richard Donofrio of Oklahoma City points out that drilling an impact structure is much more likely to be successful than drilling other types of formations. Deep under the layers of sedimentary rocks that cover most of the United States there should be at least 20 undiscovered impact craters. Canada's geology is different and most craters are on or near the surface. Donofrio therefore went through the exercise of randomly superimposing the distribution of known Canadian impact craters on a map of the U.S. Using conservative assumptions he came up with an estimate of the oil-producing potential of undiscovered impact craters in the U.S. His conclusion is staggering -- 50 billion barrels -- double the current proven American reserves. Geoscientist John Gorter from Perth, Western Australia has studied the petroleum potential of Australian impact structures. He also believes that impact craters make very promising sites for oil exploration. The most interesting, and speculative, of the Australian sites is the Bedout Structure some 200 miles off the coast of Broome. There are tentative signs that this was originally a crater 160 miles in diameter -- perhaps bigger than Chicxulub. If it does turn out to be a large impact crater, there could be huge reserves of oil in the region. The Bedout Structure could also be of interest to paleontologists -- its possible age of 250 million years corresponds with the great mass extinction at the end of the Permian period. Tar-coated comets and oily asteroids The idea that complex hydrocarbons (the main components of petroleum oil) are a natural part of the Earth's crust should come as no surprise to scientists who study comets and asteroids. Some of the meteorites that fall to Earth are rich in tar-like hydrocarbons. Comets such as Halley and Hale-Bopp are thought to have a skin of tar-like material covering a "dirty snowball" -- like an ice cream dipped in chocolate. The early Earth was made of the same stuff as comets and asteroids, so the presence of hydrocarbons deep within the Earth is to be expected. It used to be thought that the fierce heat deep underground was sufficient to break up any hydrocarbon molecules. However, Russian scientists have demonstrated that the enormous pressures prevent this. Even if the Earth did not manage to retain its original supply of hydrocarbons it is likely that the rain of comets, space dust and asteroids over billions of years would have kept the crust of the Earth topped off with the raw ingredients for oil. Could there be too much oil? Oil is best found near impact structures. Oil forms deep underground from non-biological processes. If these ideas prove correct then Donofrio's estimates for the United States should apply to other parts of the world. For areas of similar size there are possibly 20 buried impact craters with perhaps half having commercial oil reserves. The search for these elusive craters could be very rewarding. It may turn out that there is too much oil for our own good. A massive increase in known oil reserves could lower oil prices and drastically devalue existing reserves.
MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF UNDISCOVERED OIL COMING FROM DEEP WITHIN THE EARTH?? Oil Without End? Revisionists say oil isn't a fossil fuel. That could mean there's lots more of it. (FORTUNE Magazine) By Julie Creswell February 17, 2003 (FORTUNE Magazine) â In the quiet waters off the coast of Vietnam lies an area known as Bach Ho, or White Tiger Field. There, and in the nearby Black Bear and Black Lion fields, exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked. Yet oil is there. Last year the White Tiger Field and nearby areas produced 338,000 barrels per day, and they are estimated to hold about 600 million barrels more. Oil and natural gas are being found in places no one expected and in greater quantities than anticipated just a decade ago. In the mid-1990s the world's reserves of oil were thought to total about 890 billion barrels. Today reserves stand at 1.1 trillion barrels; the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that continued reserve growth, along with undiscovered resources, could bring world oil estimates to as much as three trillion barrels. "We're finding there are pretty substantial oil reserves in the world," says Tom Ahlbrandt, world energy project chief at the USGS. "New exploration and drilling technologies are making major new discoveries possible." The increase in reserve estimates is fueling the offbeat theories of maverick scientists who believe that the expression "fossil fuels" is a misnomer and that the earth contains a virtually endless supply of oil. Their ideas fly in the face of the conventional wisdom that oil and natural gas come from the remains of animals and plants buried millions of years ago. Subterranean heat and pressure, mainstream science says, transformed this organic dreck into coal and oil. Though their theories vary, the upstarts believe instead that wellsprings of oil and gas lie deep within the earth, deeper than most oil companies drill, and that supplies are constantly replenished. "With the White Tiger Field in Vietnam, 90% of the production is coming from basement rock, where there were never any fossils," argues C. Warren Hunt, a geologist in Calgary. "What they've been teaching us in school about oil coming from fossils is wrong." If true, the theories may mean we can stress less about running out of oil: There's more where that came from! We can also worry less about tensions in the Middle East or other hot spots cutting off our long-term supply. Problem is, most scientists scoff at such theories. Oil companies maintain that even if the rebels are right, the cost of searching for and extracting deep oil is prohibitive. ConocoPhillips, the $38-billion-a-year giant, is drilling for oil in the basement rock of the Black Lion Field off the coast of Vietnam. The company says the field is "unique," and the project is economically feasible because the oil is found at relatively shallow levels in the basement rock. "If you drill deeper into basement rock, you're probably going to find some hydrocarbons, but the chance of finding giant fields is pretty small," says Roger Pinkerton, ConocoPhillips's recently retired head of global exploration. He argues that there are much more accessible--albeit environmentally controversial--sources that will yield plenty of oil for the foreseeable future: to name two, the East Coast of the U.S. and Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge. Drilling deep into granite probably will never make economic sense unless the industrialized world runs dangerously low on oil or is cut off from its supply. But in the meantime scientists like Thomas Gold, a retired Cornell astronomy professor, are content with poking holes in traditional theories surrounding fossil fuels. It isn't just that hydrocarbons are being discovered in anomalous places like basement rock; Gold notes that primitive hydrocarbons like methane are also found in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, and other planets. He laid out his theories, which he believes better address those inconsistencies, in his 1998 book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels. He argues that natural gas and oil were created with the earth's formation and reside deep inside the planet. Intense heat and pressure push them from there toward the surface. As to why biological matter (what some deem fossils) is found in oil, Gold says hydrocarbons attract a primitive type of microbe called archaea that lives deep underground; it feeds on and contaminates the oil. Controversial yet renowned, Gold is credited with figuring out in the 1960s that pulsars were actually radio emissions from rapidly spinning collapsed stars, or neutron stars. To test his non-fossil-fuel theory, Gold in the 1980s persuaded the Swedish government to drill deep in a region near Siljan Lake, about 150 miles north of Stockholm. The Swedes drilled about four miles into basement rock and produced some 80 barrels of oil before the equipment became hopelessly gummed up with putty-like iron oxide. To Gold and his supporters, those 80 barrels were wet, black evidence that oil is no fossil fuel. Critics countered that the oil was merely regurgitated fluid and contaminants from the drilling operation. Because of equipment failures and ballooning costs, the project was abandoned. Gold insists that the Siljan Lake results have led Soviet scientists and explorers to drill more than 300 deep wells into basement rock since then, producing some oil--but not vast amounts. (In fact, Russian scientists have entertained theories similar to Gold's for as long as 100 years.) "The U.S. petroleum geological community has a viewpoint firmly opposed to the notion of oil being of nonbiological origin--but not the Russian, Chinese, or Vietnamese," says Gold. "The U.S. has ignored completely the obviously very important Swedish results." Gold isn't the only Western researcher to offer an alternative theory of where oil comes from. Other scientists argue that seismic activity on the ocean floor triggers a geochemical reaction between carbon and hydrogen that produces oil and natural gas. Still others say that bacteria deep within the earth--not dead dinosaurs--are making more oil every day.
Rail in Japan is profitable and as far as I know in parts of Europe as well. Not tremendously lucrative, but profitable. The issue is getting people to accept it as a good idea, then the virtuous spiral begins and the investment needed to keep the system in tip-top condition can be made with confidence. The problem is that most people in the US have very limited experience of rail and assume that Amtrak is a representative system. Once you have used a solid rail or subway network in a major city you will never go back to using a car for daily personal transport. No, rail is not optimal for rural public transport, but fleets of small buses can help cut auto use there. There is the argument that in the US the government requirement that parking spaces be supplied over the past several decades is a subsidy for the auto industry, with the cost passed on invisibly to us the consumer. I think that is pretty fair - in Europe or Japan you basically find and pay for a parking space so you are very much aware of the market cost of parking and thus the real cost of auto use. Not so in the US. "Why do people pay these people again, or vote for them?" That is the question isnt it. Suss
You mean the same EIA that keeps on revising US reserves up then down then up? With Russia and Canadian oil output increasing over the past 3 years how can you be confident global output has remained the same? Do you actually think current crude prices reflects true demand? lol.
The Saudis keep saying they can increase production by 50% or more in less than a decade. OPEC claims to have many mbpd in reserve. If you believe them, peak oil is a remote concern and oil is badly overpriced today. If you don't believe them, then the question is why would they lie to keep oil prices down. If the Saudis admitted that OPEC is essentially pumping flat out and they are struggling to increase production, crude oil would be over $125/bbl instantly. So if you think peak oil is imminent you have to ask yourself why the Saudis would want to talk down oil prices. Nobody here is arguing about whether oil production will peak some day. If that's all you're trying to say, you're wasting everyone's time. Martin
Some very good points. Peak Oil proponents are their own worst enemy in debate. I happen to believe that PO has already happened and that it will push energy prices into a steady upward trend over the next decade, but there are so many uncertainties regarding the slope of that trend and the timing that I am uneasy about predicting more than that. On the other hand many PO proponents behave like cultists - they "know" for sure, and non-believers are just idiots. A little more humility is called for... Suss
Because that's what the data says. Numerous corroborating sources. Google it. Do you have information to the contrary? Let's hear it. Incidentally, Mexican production is falling off a cliff. Of course it does. This is a real physical commodity, and physically settled futures contracts. Actual black gooey stuff is changing hands at market clearing prices. It's not just numbers on a computer screen. Martin
Talk about deaf ears! Did you miss where Pekelo and I were discussing abiotic petroleum earlier in the thread? There are a lot of "if's" in those articles. Indeed, if we find a limitless supply of crude oil deep in the basement rock, I'll take a modest loss on my long oil positions and I'll be happy that the world economy has dodged a bullet. But it's hardly something that rational people should be counting on. Martin