Can Oil Demand Really Peak Within 5 Years?

[Shannow]

We've got an education system...dinsonaurs to oil was comic book stuff.
(we also got geography and that included some tectonics, including where plants used to grow, currently grow, and how that has changed over time...all before 10th grade)

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by Shannow
We've got an education system...

So do we. Which is why I was agreeing with cujet and making fun of it. Your turn.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by billt460
The problem with all of this stuff is that everyone with a degree who ever studied it has a theory. That's all it is. Theories change because they are not fact. People think they become fact when enough people believe in them. In reality that means nothing. A large percentage of the worlds population believes in religion as well. None of it is based on provable fact.

This is much like astronomers with their black hole theory. 20 years ago most everyone who ever looked through a telescope was on board, as black holes were all the rage in the astronomy world. Where are they? How many? How big? What creates them?..... Now just a couple of decades later, many of those same astronomers doubt their existence.... And claim once again they have "proof". Which in reality means they've come up with another theory.

https://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

https://www.iflscience.com/physics/...mathematically-black-holes-do-not-exist/

So while this kind of stuff is always fun to think about and discuss, none of it can really be proven one way or the other with much, if any degree of certainty. (Except here on BITOG). There is always going to be theoretical "evidence" that helps sway opinion one way or the other. But then something else manages to surface "proving" yet another theory that points to something else. Be it Arizona in Antarctica. Or palm trees and plants buried under the North Slope..... Anyway, that's my "theory", and I'm sticking to it.... At least until someone comes up with a better theory of how to get 10,000 barrels of oil out of a dinosaur.


OK, first of off, this is nothing like astronomers and black hole theories. You are conflating astronomy and the physics of the universe, almost all of which we have zero access to and is entirely theory, to what has transpired on the physical earth that we inhabit and indicating that a lack of solid data on some of the former somehow validates what you quipped about regarding there being no trees in Alaska. That's ridiculous.

So let's look at just the facts and completely ignore the theories regarding plate shift for now and see where this takes us:
- As Shannow has pointed out, there are trees inside the lignite seams of coal, supporting that coal is indeed compressed organic matter
- Via drilling and extraction they have pulled organic material, including trees, from Antarctica - See both of Shannow's links for details on that
- We have fossil systems that clearly demonstrate that the world has changed significantly over time in terms of where water was, what kinds of plants grew where...etc. This indicates that the climate has changed significantly as well, to facilitate those being where they are found.

Look at the deserts in the middle east and how they have buried entire cities that we then excavate to expose. The time period between when that city was in full bloom and now is but a blink of an eye in terms of contrasting to the periods where the material being found in the above examples thrived.

So whether you believe that the plates moved or not or whether climate change happens or not, we have physical examples that show that plants an animals that could not inhabit these areas now, at one point did. We have physical evidence that what used to be on the surface is now hundreds, often thousands, of feet deep, which shows that the surface of the planet has changed as well. Yes, there are theories as to how that came to be, but those theories are based on those facts.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
OK, first of off, this is nothing like astronomers and black hole theories. You are conflating astronomy and the physics of the universe, almost all of which we have zero access to and is entirely theory, to what has transpired on the physical earth that we inhabit and indicating that a lack of solid data on some of the former somehow validates what you quipped about regarding there being no trees in Alaska. That's ridiculous.

So let's look at just the facts and completely ignore the theories regarding plate shift for now and see where this takes us:
- As Shannow has pointed out, there are trees inside the lignite seams of coal, supporting that coal is indeed compressed organic matter
- Via drilling and extraction they have pulled organic material, including trees, from Antarctica - See both of Shannow's links for details on that
- We have fossil systems that clearly demonstrate that the world has changed significantly over time in terms of where water was, what kinds of plants grew where...etc. This indicates that the climate has changed significantly as well, to facilitate those being where they are found.

Look at the deserts in the middle east and how they have buried entire cities that we then excavate to expose. The time period between when that city was in full bloom and now is but a blink of an eye in terms of contrasting to the periods where the material being found in the above examples thrived.

So whether you believe that the plates moved or not or whether climate change happens or not, we have physical examples that show that plants an animals that could not inhabit these areas now, at one point did. We have physical evidence that what used to be on the surface is now hundreds, often thousands, of feet deep, which shows that the surface of the planet has changed as well. Yes, there are theories as to how that came to be, but those theories are based on those facts.

While all of that sounds good, there is zero actual evidence that says Arizona ever existed where Antarctica is today. So whoever "drew" that map, did so on pure speculation and yes... Theory, that is based on very limited "evidence". Just as the existence of Black Holes is based on theory and speculation with limited evidence.

And I never said there were no trees in Alaska, or the world has not undergone change. I said there were few if any located on the North Slope that explain the massive oil reserves that are located there..... When compared to say Venezuela, which has many. If you believe Coconut Palms and Saw grass grew there at one time, then that theory becomes more plausible.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by billt460
And I never said there were no trees in Alaska, or the world has not undergone change. I said there were few if any located on the North Slope that explain the massive oil reserves that are located there..... When compared to say Venezuela, which has many. If you believe Coconut Palms and Saw grass grew there at one time, then that theory becomes more plausible.

Interesting, how do you know that?

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Interesting, how do you know that?


How about you count all of them for us, so we'll all have a better idea?

 

[kschachn]

Nice pictures. So this is what it looked like prior to the existence of the oil? You have any pictures from then?

You did use the word "were", not are. That's what I was referring to.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by kschachn
So this is what it looked like prior to the existence of the oil?

Exactly when would that be? When Arizona was up there? Or in Antarctica? Or wait.... Never mind.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by billt460
While all of that sounds good, there is zero actual evidence that says Arizona ever existed where Antarctica is today.


The idea here is that it all used to be one giant land mass (if you watched the video you'd know that) and that parts broke off as the plates shifted to resemble the world as we know it presently. All this happened over hundreds of millions of years.

So it isn't that Arizona was where Antarctica is today, it's the theory that the land mass that Arizona belongs to used to be attached to Antarctica, similar to how Australia used to be as well. That's how the theory goes.

Originally Posted by billt460
So whoever "drew" that map, did so on pure speculation and yes... Theory, that is based on very limited "evidence". Just as the existence of Black Holes is based on theory and speculation with limited evidence.


The theory is based on the fact that we know the plates move and that these areas used to be significantly more temperate. There is significant evidence, and it in no way aligns with the straw man about black holes you keep trotting out.

Originally Posted by billt460
And I never said there were no trees in Alaska, or the world has not undergone change. I said there were few if any located on the North Slope that explain the massive oil reserves that are located there..... When compared to say Venezuela, which has many. If you believe Coconut Palms and Saw grass grew there at one time, then that theory becomes more plausible.


So you know what the north slope of Alaska looked like 200 million years ago? Did you read any of the stuff Shannow posted? How far these folks had to drill to find the trees, spores and other things in Antarctica? Did you see his mention of how deep these lignite seams are?

The North Slope could have been a massive bog encircled with dense tropical foliage at one point. The fact it doesn't resemble that now is meaningless. The same reason we don't have rainforests in Antarctica: The world has changed significantly and our presence here is a split second in relation to that timeline.

Here's a document that explores the coal reserves in Alaska:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/599/downloads/DS599.pdf

On page 2, you'll see the map I've uploaded that shows that the North Face has both bituminous and subbituminous coal. Shannow has already covered what organic matter, including trees, are found in lignite, but I've included a graphic that shows the coal formation process. Note that subbituminous is what comes directly after lignite. These coal resources are extensive, which means that dense organic matter, was at one time present there in significant volume.

So literally, running entirely contrary to your narrative here, the presence of these coal formations supports that there were plenty of trees and other organic material on the north slope.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
So literally, running entirely contrary to your narrative here, the presence of these coal formations supports that there were plenty of trees and other organic material on the north slope.

I'll buy that. But then this all had to occur when it was at the equator right? (And when Arizona was in Antarctica). Because the ground is doing all of this moving around..... Not the poles.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
So literally, running entirely contrary to your narrative here, the presence of these coal formations supports that there were plenty of trees and other organic material on the north slope.

I'll buy that. But then this all had to occur when it was at the equator right? (And when Arizona was in Antarctica). Because the ground is doing all of this moving around..... Not the poles.


We know the ground moves. It moves presently. That's why we have earthquakes. I do believe there has been mention of the poles moving as well as one theory.

What's your position here Bill? You've been pretty aloof about just what it is you believe to be the case and seem more inclined to take shots at what others have brought to the table, while now, agreeing that your stance 5 minutes ago on the North Face can be explained away by the coal deposit information that I've presented.

Whether it was exclusively continental drift or whether it was drift coupled with polar shift as well is really of no consequence. We know that the conditions necessary to facilitate dense growth of trees and other plants were present at one time in these locations, including Alaska, Antarctica and many others. This is verified via the presence of the various types of coal and also explains the reserves of oil.

I'm more curious about the oil reserves located below the oceans personally.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
What's your position here Bill?

I really don't have one. For me there isn't enough solid convincing evidence either way. Personally I'm not convinced there was that much movement. Certainly not enough to put Arizona where Antarctica is. Could it have happened? Sure, but that in itself doesn't guarantee it. Not by a long shot. I'll agree that plant life is a more plausible reason for the formation of oil than dinosaurs.

And I never said coal didn't contain plant life. How, when, or where all of this supposedly occurred is nothing but speculation based on a minimal amount of evidence, all of which has been salted over with a ton of theory. To put it bluntly, I need a lot of convincing before I form an opinion on something like this, one way or the other.

You've put forth some good information. But let's keep this real. It's hardly a slam dunk as far as carving into Granite what happened 600 million years ago. You yourself have said it's theory. Theory based on some fact. How long ago was it that they stumbled on to the asteroid theory that wiped out the dinosaurs? It's only been fairly recently they've come up with evidence that somewhat supports it. They're coming up with new theories based on new information all the time.

Back to Black Holes. Many astronomers believe they have "proven" their existence though physics and mathematics. Now other astronomers have claimed they've "proven" they don't exist based on those same physics. Point being, you can argue this either way based on what little we actually know to be concrete fact. Something we very well may never have. In the meantime it's a lot like politics. You go with whomever tells the best story. Even if you don't actually believe them because you need more convincing.

 

[OVERKILL]

Question for you:

I am sure you've noticed that America and Africa look like two halves of a whole with the Atlantic in between them. Do you think that's coincidence or that this is a result of plate shift and continental drift?

Regarding your Black Hole mention, yes, there have been competing theories on that, but that's all they have ever been because of our limited knowledge of space and the fact that most of this is based on calculations and indirect observations of other phenomena that have been used to both support and condemn a theory depending on which side of the fence one is on.

So then to circle back to the whole continental thing, while there are theories regarding continental drift and polar shift, which are, in the case of the former, something we have some evidence of, based on current plate activities and the 2nd being a theory based on climate in locations that at one time was wildly different from what is there presently, our total scope of knowledge on those things is still limited and may always be theory because we were not there.

What we do know, backed by supporting evidence, and I appreciate that this is a reiteration, is that coal is the result of time and pressure on significant volumes of plant matter and subsequently the type of coal points to the time period in which that plant matter was on the surface. This demonstrates significant changes to the earth not only in terms of climate over time, but also surface conditions. This explains oil as well, and, given the theoretical timeline, why, at least on the landmasses, we continue to find more of it, and coal. If one is realistically working with the byproduct of heavily compressed plant material, which covered the planet for hundreds of millions of years, one would expect then that there would be incredible volumes of it at varying depths depending on the period and that appears to be the case.

As I said, my curiosity is more about its presence beneath the oceans, as it's not so readily explained in an evidence-based fashion.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Question for you: I am sure you've noticed that America and Africa look like two halves of a whole with the Atlantic in between them. Do you think that's coincidence or that this is a result of plate shift and continental drift?


Yeah, the puzzle looks like it fits. So what? That doesn't mean Douala, Cameroon and Natal, Brazil were the Dallas / Ft. Worth of the Paleozoic Era. Again it's possible. Perhaps even plausible. But we don't know that to be fact. And even if we did, that in itself doesn't mean Arizona ever existed at the South Pole. Or explain trees umpteen hundreds or thousands of feet under the North Slope, with any great certainty. Anymore than just because Mt. St. Helens blew it's top, that every volcano along the ring of fire will do the same.

This kind of stuff is always fun to think about and discuss. But again like politics and religion, it gets out of control too easily, because one side is always trying to convince the other of their reasoning. There is too much speculation and theory that is presented as absolute fact that simply isn't. If you can maintain that train of thought, and in the process realize that you don't have to be convinced of anything, or have a "position" one way or the other, it makes it a lot easier to absorb. Assuming you think it's worth absorbing in the first place.

 

[SuperSalad]

There is plenty of evidence that the current polar landmasses were not always in arctic climates. Whether that is due to their locations or due to changes in global climate, I have no idea, but I have no clue what point you are trying to make billt460. That you appear to be saying that trees and different plant life have not existed where the North Slope is because they don't in the current conditions makes no sense. The Earth is not stagnant and unchanging.

Fossilized Tropical Forests Found in the Arctic

Arctic's Tropical Past Uncovered

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by MotoTribologist
I have no idea, but I have no clue what point you are trying to make billt460.


It's the usual dance...you'll never work it out, trying to find the actual point is like catching eels in Jello, it's fluid, as the position changes.

Just rest assured that whatever you present will be either speculation and/or conspiracy, and therefore "possibly" wrong, as a defence for a position that starts patently wrong.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by billt460
Back to Black Holes. Many astronomers believe they have "proven" their existence though physics and mathematics. Now other astronomers have claimed they've "proven" they don't exist based on those same physics.

That's not exactly how it works. Clearly, other physicists have dismissed her paper, and I'd rather read the paper itself, though it is probably high above my capability, rather than a journalist's assessment of the claim, and I know the paper is far beyond the capability of the journalists involved.

Nonetheless, what generally happens is a mathematical model is constructed that fits with observations. Of course, more than one mathematical model may fit the observations. None of this, however, is a reason to dismiss science.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by Cujet
As an ex Mobil Oil employee, I would regularly ask the engineers the basic questions. The response was always the same, we have far, far, more oil, worldwide, than is typically acknowledged. That was 30 years ago, and it proved to be true.

I strongly suspect it remains true today.


Let's hope so.



Well.. it has been true. And given recent abilities to get to and find it .. it will continue to be found. Earths crust is 30 miles plus thick. We've only scrathed the surface.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by honeeagle
we should drop the term 'fossil fuel'.
I remember a quote from the texas oil man when he arrived in saudi early '50s ,from the steps of the aircraft he said drill there and there and there -pointing at bulges in the landscape.He is the same guy who said 'dead dinosaurs juice dont explain all this crude' add the appropiate accent.


You are right. We should use the general term, "Earth-Sourced Hydrocarbon Fuels."


^^°°°
That makes sense.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by billt460
This is all nonsense. You have to remember the bulk of this foolishness is coming from liberal, "green thinking" idiots. The bulk of which possess the common sense of a wet log. These people are totally against any and all forms of fossil fuels, along with the corporations who produce them and take them to market. Proof of that is their total resistance to building the Keystone Pipeline. It fits in with their whole, "man is bad" narrative. They hate coal, along with all gasoline and diesel burning cars and trucks. This regardless of how clean or efficient they are. (Remember Hillary's idiotic rant claiming, "We're going to put a lot of coal companies out of business!") How did that work out for her?

They even hate Natural Gas, one of the cleanest burning, and most abundant fossil fuels there is. They drone on about, "renewable energy". Solar, wind, etc. Electric cars are what they are. Expensive and impractical toys for most all but a very few consumers who own a car. Look at Tesla. They have never turned a dime in profit, and as a result they have nowhere left to go but down.

Hydrogen powered vehicles are an expensive pipe dream that are no closer to affordable mass production and sales now, than they were 25 years ago. Hydrogen takes more energy to produce than it delivers. Ethanol continues to be a non stop joke. But none the less it is constantly being pushed by the "greenies". Who think burning our food supply is a sure way to prosperity and a clean environment.

Perhaps some day there will be an alternate source of energy besides fossil fuels. But it's decades, if not over a century away. They act like it's here right now. And we're just not applying the right attitude to develop it. That nut case Jimmy Carter publically said in 1977 that we would run out of oil by 2011. We all saw how that panned out. Now Al Gore is telling anyone and everyone who will listen, the glaciers and polar ice caps are all going to melt and submerge the coastlines. And man is the cause of it all. They will continue with their whole, "the sky is falling" presentation, in hope of selling their narrative that just won't sell. At least to anyone with an ounce of common sense, who understands that businesses have to be profitable to exist. And you can't legislate technology.

I put all of this nonsense in the same category as those articles in Popular Science back in the 60's, that told me my car would fly in another 10 years. I'm still buying tires a half century later.




^^^^^

Epic post here

And I agree to a large degree as well.