"Oil is NOT a fossil fuel"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
This is not an answer.

That is correct. You state that the market cannot be counted on to provide. This means that a non-market force can. I'm asking you what that answer is.


Really? There's that "well if you don't believe in fairy dust, you must sleep with trolls" type polarized reasoning. PEL-EEZE.

Suppose nothing can provide a "solution"? That is, no known or yet to be imagined "thing" can solve a problem that is too big, what then?

In all of my observations of existence, there are absolutely no solutions. Merely exchanges of problems. You exchange unmanageable problems for manageable problems. This has never been altered in the passage of time. Not once. There is no "magic". All equations balance ..all liabilities eventually come to bear. There is no trump card. If you have seen magic, please tell where it is.


Quote:

Quote:
"THE MARKET" can only have room for 1/10 the current participants @ .1 the utility in producing. Isn't that true??

I have no idea what you are saying here.


Okay ...you can either multiply the world's population ten fold ..or diminish the available resources to 1/10 ..your choice.

The market will distribute what's available to whomever can afford it. The market has no ability to produce something from nothing and cannot assure providing it (whatever "it" is) for everyone. Hence the relying on "The Market" is a gamble that you are going to be one of the potential participants.

I can't see this being hard to understand.
 
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Originally Posted By: labman
Count on the non market for heavily subsidized non solutions as the ethanol and shale oil boondoggles.

I still see abiotic as too good to be true.


That's because it is a fairy tale.


Agreed.
 
In some way I have to agree with Tempest that market will correct itself via price and alternatives.

In non-market economy terms, that means national advantage and strategic / military means may be used to break away from the Market Economy of how the oil is allocated in the world.

Now if squat happens down in ME or Venezuela, and market economy fail (i.e. they want $1k-10k per barrel), I wouldn't be surprised if we will send troops there to overthrow some market economy. Market economy is great for peace time and balanced market, and once in a while the world isn't balanced, especially when dealing with a possible finite reserve.

That's why there is a reserve even if it is only good for a few days, and that's why not everything is done with market economy, because alternative could take years to develop and in the mean time market may not adjust itself quick enough.

Military and some part of the government (i.e. intelligence) don't run on market economy for a reason.
 
Quote:
(i.e. they want $1k-10k per barrel)

They want that now. If they try and charge it, no one will buy it. The market at work.

Their entire economy is based on oil. They have to charge what people will pay.
 
Quote:
you can either multiply the world's population ten fold

How was the population ABLE to multiply 10 times? Your static thinking is not serving you well here.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
you can either multiply the world's population ten fold

How was the population ABLE to multiply 10 times? Your static thinking is not serving you well here.



It's called "use your imagination". That is, what's going to happen when all 6B of our global population "catches up" to our 5% using 25% of all the energy? Can you multiply the current output 20X? Can you even expect to maintain it at current levels with 20X the users on the nipple?

No, you cannot. Now your outspoken objection to preemptive development means that "THE MARKET" will be totally subject to the exponential curves that are all colliding all at about the same time.

What prospects do you have for 5% of the globe's population getting even their "fair share"?? That is, 1/5 the current draw??

Yes, THE MARKET will work. You seem to imply that it will work to "our" needs. I think that this is not the case ..and to imply it blindly, without expanded qualification is totally disingenuous. AKA - deceptive.
 
Gary, the Population Bomb stated that the globe could not support more than 2 billion people...we are currently at 6 billion.

ALL of your arguments are straight out of the Population Bomb.
 
Mark put up a good article on the biogenic theory, I'll put this up which points the other way:
Quote:
# High oil quantities are found in locations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to have produced the existing reserve.

# Oil produced from varying depths from the same field has the same chemistry and does not vary as the fossil life changes with depth at these same spots.

# Every oil field outgases helium, which does not appear in meaningful quantity in any other venue, and is a thoroughly stable, inorganic gas that is a product of radiologic decay of rocks appearing at great depths within the Earth mantle.

And:
Quote:
It is known that hydrocarbons migrate within the Earth’s crust as witnessed by production at Eugene Island in the Gulf of Mexico 80 miles south of Louisiana. In 1973 when discovered, it produced 15,000 bpd but dwindled to 4,000 bpd by 1989. Inexplicably it resumed output to 13,000 bpd but has confounded geologists because current production is of a significantly different (newer) geologic age than yesteryear. Abiogenic proponents say it is being refilled from beneath the formation and that as oil migrates upward; it is attacked by bacteria that alter its appearance. It is known that such bacteria (hyperthermophiles) live at great depths, recorded in Alaska at 4.2 km and in Sweden at 5.2 km (2.6 and 3.2 miles) below the surface.

http://www.industrialheating.com/CDA/Archives/27785c9915cb7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
Lots of stuff we don't know about this.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
(i.e. they want $1k-10k per barrel)

They want that now. If they try and charge it, no one will buy it. The market at work.

Their entire economy is based on oil. They have to charge what people will pay.


Ask that again when China is trying to consume 20 million car a year, along with Brazil and India's increase consumption, and devaluation of US dollar.
 
I guess you can't. I didn't ask those who are in the links. I asked you.

Got any thoughts on it, yourself?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Mark put up a good article on the biogenic theory, I'll put this up which points the other way:
Quote:
# High oil quantities are found in locations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to have produced the existing reserve.

# Oil produced from varying depths from the same field has the same chemistry and does not vary as the fossil life changes with depth at these same spots.

# Every oil field outgases helium, which does not appear in meaningful quantity in any other venue, and is a thoroughly stable, inorganic gas that is a product of radiologic decay of rocks appearing at great depths within the Earth mantle.

And:
Quote:
It is known that hydrocarbons migrate within the Earth’s crust as witnessed by production at Eugene Island in the Gulf of Mexico 80 miles south of Louisiana. In 1973 when discovered, it produced 15,000 bpd but dwindled to 4,000 bpd by 1989. Inexplicably it resumed output to 13,000 bpd but has confounded geologists because current production is of a significantly different (newer) geologic age than yesteryear. Abiogenic proponents say it is being refilled from beneath the formation and that as oil migrates upward; it is attacked by bacteria that alter its appearance. It is known that such bacteria (hyperthermophiles) live at great depths, recorded in Alaska at 4.2 km and in Sweden at 5.2 km (2.6 and 3.2 miles) below the surface.

http://www.industrialheating.com/CDA/Archives/27785c9915cb7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
Lots of stuff we don't know about this.


This was discussed last year on BITOG, if I remember correctly and no new evidence contradicting biogenic origins for the vast majority of the oil that has been found and exploited so far has been put forth.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
I need EXACT numbers as to how much is left.

Now see, that's the tricky part. No one knows, and all past estimates by "experts" have been laughably wrong.

So how do you price something valuable that is (presumably) limited to an unknown degree, in order to "conserve" it?

Further, to what degree do we artificially impact our current living standards to "conserve" something that is currently plentiful and cheap?


It is very simple. We see that fields run out, don't we. We find more, sure, because there are how many millions of square miles on the earth to scour? How many millions of CUBIC miles in the earth? There is bound to be something someplace if you look for it. I equate this reality to the reality that if you flip a coin twenty times, you are bound to get heads at least once.

Now, again, it all has to do with kinetics and formation. Let's say that the earth does "synthesize" hydrocarbons/crudes naturally. We DO know that historical "easy access" locations are "drying" out, with gather-able feedstocks harder and harder to access.

So perhaps the more correct question to ask is at what point does the cost of extracting crude cross the costs of incremental efficiency gains.

If you figure that a good portion of world GDP is spent providing access and stability for those energy resources, and look at the REAL cost per BTU, the picture changes substantially. Yet we do not consider this. Why? Answer me that? Why don't we consider the REAL cost in securing the energy the way we do now. That includes permitting, liability insurance and the rest, not just military and governmental actions.

Further, no fuel we have today is totally clean. Regardless of how "natural" it is, if the feedstock is sequestered below the earth, great. When it comes up, and ultrafine soot, coarse soot, NOx, SOx, CO, HCs, etc. all come up and tons and tons are emitted into my air, near me, that is unpleasant. Heck, it is even unpleasant for the Chinese, so much so that they seen to need to shut down factories for the olympics and wear face masks to go out in some areas. Is that good?

There are so many other levels to this argument that are more important.

And then again, cross kinetics of formation with locations of formation and accessibility of new product, and then look at the real cost, and nothing makes sense with respect to "the old paradigm". Period.

I havent heard that the earth has reconstituted "spent" oil fields in a timely manner, have you?
 
Quote:
It is very simple.

Yet with a post that long, you provide NO method as to derive artificial pricing, as well as not providing a % in the amount we should reduce consumption. The entire point of my post.

If someone handed you a formulation for a modification of product A, by "reducing component Z", without saying by how much, I think you would laugh at them.

But what about:
Quote:
Why don't we consider the REAL cost in securing the energy the way we do now. That includes permitting, liability insurance and the rest, not just military and governmental actions.

Permitting, liability and insurance and "other" ARE included in the price we pay for gas. And oil companies pay MASSIVE taxes (which really comes out of the end users pocket) that are greater than their profits, so they (as well as end users) are contributing to "government action". End users pay ADDITIONAL taxes at the point of sale.
Quote:
Further, no fuel we have today is totally clean.

That is correct, but as Gary will tell you, there is always a side affect. If you know of a perfectly clean power source that doesn't require "permitting, liability insurance, and government action" then please share with the rest of the world. Please make sure to factor in all "real costs" as well.
 
Quote:
This was discussed last year on BITOG, if I remember correctly

Did a search and couldn't find anything??

The helium thing is most interesting. Not sure how that would come from organic sources.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest

Permitting, liability and insurance and "other" ARE included in the price we pay for gas. And oil companies pay MASSIVE taxes (which really comes out of the end users pocket) that are greater than their profits, so they (as well as end users) are contributing to "government action". End users pay ADDITIONAL taxes at the point of sale.


That's true to a certain extend. We paid for the domestic portion of the cost like the refinery and gas station. We haven't historically paid for the total cost in foreign 3rd world like Nigeria (how do you explain one of the world's largest oil exporter being so broke?) and the Middle East (except UAE, as most of the ME outside the monarch and dictators aren't living well).

Maybe they aren't considered as a cost because life weren't as precious or costly as we are.

Or maybe that's their cost rather than our cost.....????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wwillson
  • Locked
Answers - Pennzoil Technology behind "Made From Natural Gas" and Vehicle maintenance while driving less Q&A
Replies
5
Views
38K
RateNate
wwillson
  • Locked
Pennzoil GF-6 and Low Viscosity Engine Oil Q&A - Answers
Replies
15
Views
21K
4WD
wemay
  • Locked
LSPI: A KNOCK ON THE NEWEST ENGINES 2/4/16
2
Replies
35
Views
19K
SteveSRT8
P
  • Locked
Polyetheramine as dispersant in engine oil
2
Replies
24
Views
17K
Pontual
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
Back
Top Bottom