Can Oil Demand Really Peak Within 5 Years?

[billt460]

Originally Posted by Cujet
I am constantly amazed at the depths at which oil is found. the abiotic theory may in fact have some merit. Just how many dead conventionalsaurs were there really. There seems no possible way large quantities of oil should be found at extreme depths where life never existed.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...0..0j35i39j0i131j33i22i29i30.Xr53JqIzgbk

I find it almost laughable with this parallel line we always manage to draw between conventionalsaurs and oil. It's silly. The numbers don't add up regardless of how you figure it. The world consumes on average, 93 MILLION barrels of oil per day. Day in and day out. Or more than 34 BILLION barrels per year. Year in and year out.

Now, how many barrels of oil could a single conventionalsaur possibly produce? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Let's say every conventionalsaur that ever existed on planet Earth produced 10,000 barrels of oil. I highly doubt that could be possible. But let's give the conventionalsaurs every benefit of the doubt here.

That would mean we would go through the equivalent of 9,300 conventionalsaurs every DAY. Day in and day out. How many conventionalsaurs could have possibly ever existed? And remember, they were all wiped out over 66 MILLION years ago. Which means we've been running at a conventionalsaur deficit ever since the first internal combustion engine was ever made. There would have had to have been more conventionalsaurs than ants! And we still have God knows how many more decades of oil under the ground.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by Cujet
I am constantly amazed at the depths at which oil is found. the abiotic theory may in fact have some merit. Just how many dead dinosaurs were there really. There seems no possible way large quantities of oil should be found at extreme depths where life never existed.

Discovery and Drilling technology will be enhanced as well.

I am still of the belief that the fossil fuels we discover are either methane enriched or methane sourced.

 

[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.

 

[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."

 

[honeeagle]

When was oil discovered in Pennslvania? around 1850 ?
I bet every 'expert' said it will be a dry hole by 1900-1910 ...... ha

I also seem to remember the term 'peek oil' was a term used by that oil speculator and author of that book of the same name ........ hummm

 

[kschachn]

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.

But most theories don't say it came from dinosaurs, correct? They say it generally came from plant material, mostly marine plants. Much like the origin of coal which will capture fossilizations of the origin - unlike liquid crude.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Cujet
I am constantly amazed at the depths at which oil is found. the abiotic theory may in fact have some merit. Just how many dead dinosaurs were there really. There seems no possible way large quantities of oil should be found at extreme depths where life never existed.


Oil wasn't dinosaurs...remember, the atmosphere was once made up of methane and CO2...and now they are trace elements...there was a LOT of carbon above the ground.

Look at coal, clearly plant origin, and look at the extent of all of our contents that it covers...lignite in Oz, seams 120-150 feet thick, you can still see the trees. Black coal, seams of metres thickness, piled three seams deep, with tens of feet of sedimentary rock between them (meaning that they were floodplains multiple times over the millenia, and here, 3,000 feet above sea level.

Yes, carbonaceous rocks heat, water, temperature and metallic oxides will form hydrocarbons, and thus be "abiotic"...but the claims that since some can be, all is are farcical. (not accusing you of that).

As to where no life existed, the KOLA borehold found fossilised plankton at 6,700m down (22,000 feet)...no dinosaurs, plankton.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by kschachn
But most theories don't say it came from dinosaurs, correct? They say it generally came from plant material, mostly marine plants.

I'll buy into the whole plant deal. If for no other reason because it's far more plausible than dinosaurs. But then there is the North Slope of Alaska. Some of the largest oil reserves on the planet are found there........ And not too many plants. And the polar region has never been warm enough to grow them in any abundance. Then or now. Venezuela sure. I'm in.

 

[honeeagle]

"the polar region has never been warm......" think again, how do mastodons end up metres down in permafrost? hint not perminant .Also consider plate tectonics.
The planet sequesters carbon as a matter of course ,where does all the coal come from?
It was once in the air along with calcium carbonate and all the other carbons.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by kschachn
But most theories don't say it came from dinosaurs, correct? They say it generally came from plant material, mostly marine plants.

I'll buy into the whole plant deal. If for no other reason because it's far more plausible than dinosaurs. But then there is the North Slope of Alaska. Some of the largest oil reserves on the planet are found there........ And not too many plants. And the polar region has never been warm enough to grow them in any abundance. Then or now. Venezuela sure. I'm in.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by honeeagle
"the polar region has never been warm......" think again, how do mastodons end up metres down in permafrost?

Perhaps they're stuck down there with all the palm trees?

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

So Arizona was located in Antarctica? I'm going back to 10,000 barrels from each dinosaur.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by OVERKILL

So Arizona was located in Antarctica? I'm going back to 10,000 barrels from each dinosaur.


Everything has moved around significantly.

Watch this video:

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by kschachn
But most theories don't say it came from dinosaurs, correct? They say it generally came from plant material, mostly marine plants.

I'll buy into the whole plant deal. If for no other reason because it's far more plausible than dinosaurs. But then there is the North Slope of Alaska. Some of the largest oil reserves on the planet are found there........ And not too many plants. And the polar region has never been warm enough to grow them in any abundance. Then or now. Venezuela sure. I'm in.


I know a guy with a piece of petrified wood from Antarctica.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19077439
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/ancient-fossil-forest-found-antarctica-gondwana-spd/

 

[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.

 

[Shannow]

So what is your theory again ?

A few posts ago, there were never any plants in Antarctica.aka...here we go again...

 

[billt460]

There never were. But your theory has convinced me otherwise. See how smart you are!

 

[Shannow]

Where did you ever come up with the idea that oil was dinosaurs...to the extent that you had to bat it down as foolishness ???

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
I am still of the belief that the fossil fuels we discover are either methane enriched or methane sourced.


We've been over that with coal in the other thread...it's not that latter, and probably not the former.

Lignite you can still see the trees in some parts.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Where did you ever come up with the idea that oil was dinosaurs...to the extent that you had to bat it down as foolishness ???

Are you telling me you have never heard that? Come on, Australia can't be that "down under". Besides, I was just agreeing with cujet's post, (which I quoted above mine), and elaborated further on the subject. But I can see where you missed all that because your only interest is trolling me. (I know it's going to be a task, but I'm going to try and match your pettiness here post for post, just so I can see how long I can keep you going).