it's not really rediculous, because 50% of the time, I don't have it in the truck, so I fall under the category that was being complained about.
Truck & SUV "solution" to Fuel Prices/Demand
- Thread starter outrun
- Start date
- Status
Jsharp, I did not imply that government has to control waste or force us to be more conservative. I simply say that it is our responsibility as society is to be conservative and prevent waste.
It was the original premise of the thread I think. I should have responded to the thread in general instead of to your post in particular.
No problem.
:soapbox:
If you want a more fuel effecient vehicle there are many to select from. If you want a big SUV, there are many to select from. If you want a Sports car there are many to select from. If you want a pickup truck...You get the idea. Living in a "FREE" society we are blessed with many choices to fullfill our wants and needs.
It is not up to society to decide the difference between yours or my wants and needs.
Having the choice betweeen a pickuptruck and a sedan, I will always choose a pickup truck, I wouldn't know how to get along in my household and my lifestyle without one(nor would I want to). Believe it or not I like to load the bed full of dirtm mulch and compost materials(for my organic yard) or load it with toys or bring home major appliances instead of paying delivery charges.
I have a 4 bedroom house and it is just me and my wife. We have alot of guest and more stuff than we may"need" but we have most of what we want.
When the automobile began to be produced it was a status symbol. Not everyone could afford such extravegant personal transportation. Much like not everyone could afford a horse. Eventually the cost of the automobile went down while the wealth of the population went proportionaly up. up. What goes up must come down. There is no right to cheap transportation despite a misconception that driving is a right..only if you can afford to meet your responsibilities of insurance and vehicle safety nmaintenance and can afford the operationa cost. If you can't do that, you don't have the right to drive. (needs and wants excluded when it comes to public safety and obeying the law)
I don't owe anyone or anyones children anything other than to not infringe upon there rights to make free choices. Freedom does not = fair. The sooner individuals understand that truth the sooner they can enjoy freedom and stop fretting on fairness, which is a result of circumstance, which is beyond control. We have many options as individuals. I am very thankfull for that.
Well put, Bryan. Really, anything we enjoy beyond our basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter could be construed as wasteful. Thus, anyone who does that they enjoy can be pointed to as 'part of the problem'.
Exactly. Personaly I believe many people have too may children. I am no where near suggestion the goverment should get involved to enforce my belief. But if people would stop having more than two children(that is one per individual) our energy and food needs would be greatly reduced in a generation due to natural attrition. But I do not feel superior to friends with 3 or 4 kids, they have enough problems (4 kids). They are free to have a dozen if they can afford it though I think it's unwise.
Living free we get to make decisions that may affect everyone but it beats the alternative.
http://planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilreserves.html
Has articles, graphs and the shennaigans oil producing countries play. A big jump in oil reserves occured in 2003 due to the inclusion of tar sands in canada.
Rather than me quoting little pieces, this brings together all the substantive info.
And if anyone has a historical bone in them, they will realize that we have been running out of oil every since the first drop was pumped. LOL
Also a good article on lew rockwell.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/giles6.html
Dan
Has articles, graphs and the shennaigans oil producing countries play. A big jump in oil reserves occured in 2003 due to the inclusion of tar sands in canada.
Rather than me quoting little pieces, this brings together all the substantive info.
And if anyone has a historical bone in them, they will realize that we have been running out of oil every since the first drop was pumped. LOL
Also a good article on lew rockwell.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/giles6.html
Dan
Freedom also allows folks the right to criticize.
So if one is going to cite their freedom to own a 3 ton vehicle so momma can go the 4.7 miles to the mall and back in elevated comfort, then they shouldn't be shocked that others are going to exercise their freedom to criticize her vehicle choice.
I'm all for freedom.
I disagree that there is a right or wrong solution here. Everybody gets to choose.
For me, I choose to look at the big picture. It's not the price of gas that is the biggest part of transportation cost. It's the price of the vehicle.
So I'll make fun of anyone who has spent more than $2500 on their vehicle and then I hear them complain about gas prices.
Wanna really save money, keep your current car, or buy a 10 year old used one and drive it another 100K miles.
I laugh at all of you who are bad at math, LOL
So if one is going to cite their freedom to own a 3 ton vehicle so momma can go the 4.7 miles to the mall and back in elevated comfort, then they shouldn't be shocked that others are going to exercise their freedom to criticize her vehicle choice.
I'm all for freedom.
I disagree that there is a right or wrong solution here. Everybody gets to choose.
For me, I choose to look at the big picture. It's not the price of gas that is the biggest part of transportation cost. It's the price of the vehicle.
So I'll make fun of anyone who has spent more than $2500 on their vehicle and then I hear them complain about gas prices.
Wanna really save money, keep your current car, or buy a 10 year old used one and drive it another 100K miles.
I laugh at all of you who are bad at math, LOL
Javacontour: excellent point.
Dan, I didn't get the same conclusion from that site that you did.
In fact, it seems to contradict what you stated.
Labeling unconventional oil as proven reserves, and OPEC nations severely overestimating their reserves result in the numbers on the graphs and chart, but don't refllct reality.
Many major oil fields have or will soon begin to decline, which will also mean the oil left will be more expensive to get out.
Anyway, here's a general link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
Like anything else, you can look as deeply as you want, or stop when you find what you want.
In fact, it seems to contradict what you stated.
Labeling unconventional oil as proven reserves, and OPEC nations severely overestimating their reserves result in the numbers on the graphs and chart, but don't refllct reality.
Many major oil fields have or will soon begin to decline, which will also mean the oil left will be more expensive to get out.
Anyway, here's a general link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
Like anything else, you can look as deeply as you want, or stop when you find what you want.
JHZR2
Staff member
If we want to talk about 'rights'... fine, you have your rights and I have mine.
It makes no difference to the Guzzling vehicle drivers that their habits SIGNIFICANTLY influence the prices of fuel for EVERYONE. If the guzzling vehicle owners who as a group are also deeply in debt and cash-strapped, couldnt be leveraged upon so much, fuel prices would not be traded on panic and speculation to the degre that they are. However, those that trade the commodities on the markets have EVERYONE by the throat as a result of the choices of a large portion of people, who decided they had to exercise their freedom to own whatever vehicle they liked, and use excessive amounts of resources "because they can".
Maybe I should start blurting obscenities in "family oriented" situations... maybe I shoudl read porn while at mc donalds. Maybe Ill drive just above the minimum speed on the interstate, and maybe Ill blurt heavy metal outside your window at 3am... because I can. I have the "freedom" after all to do whatever I want. Locality codes and ordinances might be instilled to frown upon some actions, but theyre really only there to hopoefully make people act in a socially conscious manner... However, its my right to not act in a socially conscious manner with respect to my utilization of resources, so its my right to do whatever else I want to as well. Go ahead try and stop me
Of course, I am not one to act in such a manner - and do not intend to do so... but it is my right to do so if I choose - even if you dont like it. The key is that the population as a whole acts in socially conscious ways to better the common good. If youre contributing to the excessive use of resources, and thus contributiing to the leverage that everyone from OPEC to the commodity traders can exert as a result of your choices - your right to let them do this so that you can flex your independent muscle and buy what you want without care... then youre part of the problem, not the solution. And if youre part of the problem, then youre going to have a lot of people unhappy.
AND, though there might be new and semi-abundant reserves popping up more and moreso, allowing things to stay at the status quo for longer periods of time - it should be realized that the actual costs of finding and recovering more and more of these energy assets is becoming more and more expensive - Ive read of levels in excess of 4x the historical cost from discovery through refinery. So we might still have the same level of apparent abundance, but there is no doubt that our excessive use of those easy sources, by virtue none other than that they were easy and thus cheap, is costing us more each and every day!!
JMH
It makes no difference to the Guzzling vehicle drivers that their habits SIGNIFICANTLY influence the prices of fuel for EVERYONE. If the guzzling vehicle owners who as a group are also deeply in debt and cash-strapped, couldnt be leveraged upon so much, fuel prices would not be traded on panic and speculation to the degre that they are. However, those that trade the commodities on the markets have EVERYONE by the throat as a result of the choices of a large portion of people, who decided they had to exercise their freedom to own whatever vehicle they liked, and use excessive amounts of resources "because they can".
Maybe I should start blurting obscenities in "family oriented" situations... maybe I shoudl read porn while at mc donalds. Maybe Ill drive just above the minimum speed on the interstate, and maybe Ill blurt heavy metal outside your window at 3am... because I can. I have the "freedom" after all to do whatever I want. Locality codes and ordinances might be instilled to frown upon some actions, but theyre really only there to hopoefully make people act in a socially conscious manner... However, its my right to not act in a socially conscious manner with respect to my utilization of resources, so its my right to do whatever else I want to as well. Go ahead try and stop me
Of course, I am not one to act in such a manner - and do not intend to do so... but it is my right to do so if I choose - even if you dont like it. The key is that the population as a whole acts in socially conscious ways to better the common good. If youre contributing to the excessive use of resources, and thus contributiing to the leverage that everyone from OPEC to the commodity traders can exert as a result of your choices - your right to let them do this so that you can flex your independent muscle and buy what you want without care... then youre part of the problem, not the solution. And if youre part of the problem, then youre going to have a lot of people unhappy.
AND, though there might be new and semi-abundant reserves popping up more and moreso, allowing things to stay at the status quo for longer periods of time - it should be realized that the actual costs of finding and recovering more and more of these energy assets is becoming more and more expensive - Ive read of levels in excess of 4x the historical cost from discovery through refinery. So we might still have the same level of apparent abundance, but there is no doubt that our excessive use of those easy sources, by virtue none other than that they were easy and thus cheap, is costing us more each and every day!!
JMH
Mark, I have to disagree, the proposition that oil is running out is yet another red herring in my opinion. I dont believe just anything without checking it out myself unlike most people who swallow anything shoved at them.
The argument for peak oil is much like that of global warming, they both are presented as an accomplished fact when both are not supported by evidence, they are only belief systems. The question remains, why are we being sold these belief systems. Several theories could explain, I leave it to others to research and think for themselves.
check out:
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
and
The Scotsman Fri 21 May 2004
Fears of dwindling oil supply unfounded
JAMES REYNOLDS ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
Key points
• Oil supplies are not running out according to Dr Leonardo Maugeri
• Dr Maugeri argues oil reserves estimates will continue to increase
• Previous estimates based on incorrect data according to Dr Maugeri
Key quote
"The amount of oil remaining is a matter for scientific debate. What is no longer a matter for debate is, with the costs of climate change, we cannot afford to burn all the oil we already know exists" - Duncan McLaren, chief executive Friends of the Earth Scotland
Story in full CLAIMS that the world’s oil reserves are running low and a loss of petrol supplies is imminent have been laid to rest in a new report.
According to Dr Leonardo Maugeri, the world is not running out of oil, and the reality is that there are abundant supplies for years to come.
In his report Oil: Never Cry Wolf - Why the Petroleum Age Is Far From Over, he says that rather than being fixed, oil reserves are often larger than first thought because of increasing knowledge about specific deposits and advances in technology for recovering the oil. In addition, estimates of proven world oil reserves have been increasing since the 1940s, a trend he says is likely to continue.
Dr Maugeri says that proven reserves exceed one trillion barrels, while yearly consumption is about 28 billion barrels. But he points out that, overall, the world retains more than three trillion barrels of recoverable oil resources.
In a report published in the journal Science, Dr Maugeri says that the current model of oil pessimists is derived from a 1956 text by KM Hubbert, a work he dismisses as based on out-of-date information.
The best estimates in 1942 indicated that the Kern River field in California had just 54 million barrels of remaining oil. By 1986, the field had produced 736 million barrels, and estimates put the remaining reserves at 970 million barrels.
In a more modern example, Dr Maugeri cites the most recently discovered oil frontier in the world, Kazakhstan, and its major finding, the massive Kashagan oilfield. For decades, geological surveys had only indicated the possibility of hydrocarbon deposits there.
Dr Maugeri said: "There are many other oilfields yet to be explored in this area that have a geological structure similar to that of Kashagan.
"Thanks to new exploration, drilling and recovery technology, the worldwide finding and development cost per barrel of oil equivalent has dramatically declined over the last 20 years, from an average of about $21 in 1979-81 to under $6 in 1997-99. At the same time, the recovery rate from world oilfields has increased from about 22 per cent in 1980 to 35 per cent today."
However, Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "The amount of oil remaining is a matter for scientific debate. What is no longer a matter for debate is, with the costs of climate change, we cannot afford to burn all the oil we already know exists."
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=578462004
Another good article about peak oil.
If hydrocarbons are renewable- then is "Peak Oil" a fraud?
by Joel Bainerman
Are hydrocarbons "renewable"- and if so- what does such a conclusion mean for the future of the world's oil and natural gas supplies?
The question is critical due to the enormous amount of coverage the issue of "Peak Oil" is receiving from the mainstream press. If the supply of hydrocarbons is renewable- then the contrary to the conventional wisdom being touted throughout the mainstream press today- the world is NOT running out of oil.
Unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been for quite some time now two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma.
One of the world's leading advocates for the theory that hydrocarbons are renewable is Dr. Thomas Gold who contends that oil is not a limited resource, and that oil, natural gas and coal, are not so-called �fossil fuels.�
In his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, he explains that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas, but rather generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth.
Dr. Gold: "Astronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them. Is it reasonable to think that our little Earth, one of the planets, contains oil and gas for reasons that are all its own and that these other bodies have it because it was built into them when they were born? That question makes a lot of sense. After all, they didn�t have dinosaurs and ferns on Jupiter to produce oil and gas?"
He continues: "Human skull fossils have been found in anthracite coal in Pennsylvania. The official theory of the development of coal will not accept that reality, since human beings were not around when anthracite coal was formed. Coal was formed millions of years ago. However, you cannot mistake the fact that these are human fossils."
"The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff. It was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved; with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside. A hard, brittle coal is not going to get into each cell of a delicate leaf without destroying it. So obviously that stuff was a thin liquid at one time which gradually hardened."
Gold claims that the only thing we find now on the Earth that would do that is petroleum, which gradually becomes stiffer and harder. That is the only logical explanation for the origin of coal. So the fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils found in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. Where then does the carbon base come from that produces all of this?
Says Dr. Gold: "Petroleum and coal were made from materials in which heavy hydrocarbons were common components. We know that because the meteorites are the sort of debris left over from the formations of the planets and those contain carbon in unoxidized form as hydrocarbons as oil and coal-like particles. We find that in one large class of meteorites and we find that equally on many of the other planetary bodies in the solar system. So it�s pretty clear that when the Earth formed it contained a lot of carbon material built into it."
Dr. Gold's ideas would lead us to believe that there is so much natural gas in the earth that it is causing earthquakes in trying to escape from the Earth. If you�ll drill deep enough anywhere, you will find natural gas. It may not be in commercial quantities every time, but more than likely it will be.
Is the oil and gas industry reconsidering things in light of his work?
Absolutely not.
"In many other countries they are listening to me: in Russia on a very large scale, and in China also. It is just Western Europe and the United States that are so stuck in the mud that they can�t look at anything else."
What do the Russians know that the West don't?
The roots of Dr. Gold's theories are in Russia where scientists since the end World War II have been researching what is referred to as the "Modern Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins."
Although the theory was first expounded upon by Professor Nikolai Kudryavtsev in 1951 it is not the work of any one single man but has been developed by hundreds of scientists in the (now former) U.S.S.R..
The theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not a vague, qualitative hypothesis, but stands as a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences. In this respect, the modern theory differs fundamentally not only from the previous hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum but also from all traditional geological hypotheses.
Actually, since the nineteenth century, knowledgeable physicists, chemists, thermodynamicists, and chemical engineers have regarded with grave reservations (if not outright disdain) the suggestion that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high free enthalpy (the constituents of crude oil) might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly oxidized biogenic molecules of low free enthalpy. Beginning in 1964, Soviet scientists carried out extensive theoretical statistical thermodynamic analysis which established explicitly that the hypothesis of evolution of hydrocarbon molecules (except methane) from biogenic ones in the temperature and pressure regime of the Earth's near-surface crust was glaringly in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
The theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock.
Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement.
Is "Peak Oil" a fraud?
So why is the western media being inundated with notions of the world running out of oil?
One could point a finger at the multinational oil companies and their vested interest in having the price of a barrel of oil rise substantially- to justify further exploration expenses- and of course- to bolster their bottom line.
Says Dr. J.F. Kenney, a long-time research on the origins of hydrocarbons:
"For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race was imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all such predictions have depended fundamentally upon an archaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and was accordingly limited in abundance."
That hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Therefore, according to Kenney, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation.
As far back as 1757, in his address at the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, Academician Mikhailo V. Lomonosov, stated:
"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 [petroleum , or crude oil]"
More than 200 years later, Professor Emmanuil Chekaliuk told the conference on Petroleum and Petroleum Geology in Moscow that:
"Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration."
Contrarily, the statistics of the international petroleum industry establish that, far from diminishing, the net known recoverable reserves of petroleum have been growing steadily for the past fifty years. Those statistics show that, for every year since about 1946, the international petroleum industry has discovered at least five new tons of recoverable oil for every three which have been consumed.
As Professor P. Odell of the London School of Economics has put it, instead of "running out of oil," the human race by every measure seems to be "running into oil".
Says Dr. Kenney: "There stands no reason to worry about, and even less to plan for, any predicted demise of the petroleum industry based upon a vanishing of petroleum reserves. On the contrary, these considerations compel additional investment and development in the technology and skills of deep drilling, of deep seismic measurement and interpretation, of the reservoir properties of crystalline rock, and of the associated completion and production practices which should be applied in such non-traditional reservoirs"
If Kenney is correct, not only are any predictions that the world is "running out of oil" invalid, so also are suggestions that the petroleum exploration and production industry is a "mature" or "declining" one.
The impact on the planet of the conclusions of this debate
Much research remains to be done on "alternative" theories of the how much hydrocarbons are left in the world- unfortunately- those entities most able to do this research- the western multinational oil conglomerates- have the least interest in arriving at any conclusion other than those that are part of the "Peak Oil" stream of thought. Today the mainstream press has accepted as a given that the world has only a finite amount of oil and natural gas- and thus any decision taken on how to deal with the world's future needs are based on these conclusions. If they are erroneous- then the world is about to embark on a plan to provide for its energy needs for the coming century based on a false notion.
Research geochemist Michael Lewan of the U.S.Geological Survey in Denver, is one of the most knowledgeable advocates of the opposing theory, that petroleum is a "fossil fuel". Yet even Lewan admits:
"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in commercial quantities?'"
We might never know the answer to that question because both sides of this debate are not being heard by the general public. If the Russians have accepted the theory that hydrocarbons are renewable- and over time they will become the leading exporters of oil and gas worldwide- this fact alone requires these alternative theories of how fossil fuels are created- is required.
It behooves western governments to begin taking these alternative theories seriously- and design future energy policies based on possibility that they are correct. Whatever strategies for meeting the world's ferocious appetite for energy are devised today- will impact the planet for decades to come.
In this issue- we simply can't afford to be wrong.
Joel Bainerman
Joel Bainerman has been a writer on economic and Middle East issues since 1983. His published archive can be viewed on his website at www.joelbainerman.com
If hydrocarbons are renewable- then is "Peak Oil" a fraud?
by Joel Bainerman
Are hydrocarbons "renewable"- and if so- what does such a conclusion mean for the future of the world's oil and natural gas supplies?
The question is critical due to the enormous amount of coverage the issue of "Peak Oil" is receiving from the mainstream press. If the supply of hydrocarbons is renewable- then the contrary to the conventional wisdom being touted throughout the mainstream press today- the world is NOT running out of oil.
Unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been for quite some time now two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma.
One of the world's leading advocates for the theory that hydrocarbons are renewable is Dr. Thomas Gold who contends that oil is not a limited resource, and that oil, natural gas and coal, are not so-called �fossil fuels.�
In his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, he explains that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas, but rather generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth.
Dr. Gold: "Astronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them. Is it reasonable to think that our little Earth, one of the planets, contains oil and gas for reasons that are all its own and that these other bodies have it because it was built into them when they were born? That question makes a lot of sense. After all, they didn�t have dinosaurs and ferns on Jupiter to produce oil and gas?"
He continues: "Human skull fossils have been found in anthracite coal in Pennsylvania. The official theory of the development of coal will not accept that reality, since human beings were not around when anthracite coal was formed. Coal was formed millions of years ago. However, you cannot mistake the fact that these are human fossils."
"The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff. It was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved; with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside. A hard, brittle coal is not going to get into each cell of a delicate leaf without destroying it. So obviously that stuff was a thin liquid at one time which gradually hardened."
Gold claims that the only thing we find now on the Earth that would do that is petroleum, which gradually becomes stiffer and harder. That is the only logical explanation for the origin of coal. So the fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils found in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. Where then does the carbon base come from that produces all of this?
Says Dr. Gold: "Petroleum and coal were made from materials in which heavy hydrocarbons were common components. We know that because the meteorites are the sort of debris left over from the formations of the planets and those contain carbon in unoxidized form as hydrocarbons as oil and coal-like particles. We find that in one large class of meteorites and we find that equally on many of the other planetary bodies in the solar system. So it�s pretty clear that when the Earth formed it contained a lot of carbon material built into it."
Dr. Gold's ideas would lead us to believe that there is so much natural gas in the earth that it is causing earthquakes in trying to escape from the Earth. If you�ll drill deep enough anywhere, you will find natural gas. It may not be in commercial quantities every time, but more than likely it will be.
Is the oil and gas industry reconsidering things in light of his work?
Absolutely not.
"In many other countries they are listening to me: in Russia on a very large scale, and in China also. It is just Western Europe and the United States that are so stuck in the mud that they can�t look at anything else."
What do the Russians know that the West don't?
The roots of Dr. Gold's theories are in Russia where scientists since the end World War II have been researching what is referred to as the "Modern Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins."
Although the theory was first expounded upon by Professor Nikolai Kudryavtsev in 1951 it is not the work of any one single man but has been developed by hundreds of scientists in the (now former) U.S.S.R..
The theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not a vague, qualitative hypothesis, but stands as a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences. In this respect, the modern theory differs fundamentally not only from the previous hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum but also from all traditional geological hypotheses.
Actually, since the nineteenth century, knowledgeable physicists, chemists, thermodynamicists, and chemical engineers have regarded with grave reservations (if not outright disdain) the suggestion that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high free enthalpy (the constituents of crude oil) might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly oxidized biogenic molecules of low free enthalpy. Beginning in 1964, Soviet scientists carried out extensive theoretical statistical thermodynamic analysis which established explicitly that the hypothesis of evolution of hydrocarbon molecules (except methane) from biogenic ones in the temperature and pressure regime of the Earth's near-surface crust was glaringly in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
The theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock.
Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement.
Is "Peak Oil" a fraud?
So why is the western media being inundated with notions of the world running out of oil?
One could point a finger at the multinational oil companies and their vested interest in having the price of a barrel of oil rise substantially- to justify further exploration expenses- and of course- to bolster their bottom line.
Says Dr. J.F. Kenney, a long-time research on the origins of hydrocarbons:
"For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race was imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all such predictions have depended fundamentally upon an archaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and was accordingly limited in abundance."
That hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Therefore, according to Kenney, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation.
As far back as 1757, in his address at the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, Academician Mikhailo V. Lomonosov, stated:
"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 [petroleum , or crude oil]"
More than 200 years later, Professor Emmanuil Chekaliuk told the conference on Petroleum and Petroleum Geology in Moscow that:
"Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration."
Contrarily, the statistics of the international petroleum industry establish that, far from diminishing, the net known recoverable reserves of petroleum have been growing steadily for the past fifty years. Those statistics show that, for every year since about 1946, the international petroleum industry has discovered at least five new tons of recoverable oil for every three which have been consumed.
As Professor P. Odell of the London School of Economics has put it, instead of "running out of oil," the human race by every measure seems to be "running into oil".
Says Dr. Kenney: "There stands no reason to worry about, and even less to plan for, any predicted demise of the petroleum industry based upon a vanishing of petroleum reserves. On the contrary, these considerations compel additional investment and development in the technology and skills of deep drilling, of deep seismic measurement and interpretation, of the reservoir properties of crystalline rock, and of the associated completion and production practices which should be applied in such non-traditional reservoirs"
If Kenney is correct, not only are any predictions that the world is "running out of oil" invalid, so also are suggestions that the petroleum exploration and production industry is a "mature" or "declining" one.
The impact on the planet of the conclusions of this debate
Much research remains to be done on "alternative" theories of the how much hydrocarbons are left in the world- unfortunately- those entities most able to do this research- the western multinational oil conglomerates- have the least interest in arriving at any conclusion other than those that are part of the "Peak Oil" stream of thought. Today the mainstream press has accepted as a given that the world has only a finite amount of oil and natural gas- and thus any decision taken on how to deal with the world's future needs are based on these conclusions. If they are erroneous- then the world is about to embark on a plan to provide for its energy needs for the coming century based on a false notion.
Research geochemist Michael Lewan of the U.S.Geological Survey in Denver, is one of the most knowledgeable advocates of the opposing theory, that petroleum is a "fossil fuel". Yet even Lewan admits:
"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in commercial quantities?'"
We might never know the answer to that question because both sides of this debate are not being heard by the general public. If the Russians have accepted the theory that hydrocarbons are renewable- and over time they will become the leading exporters of oil and gas worldwide- this fact alone requires these alternative theories of how fossil fuels are created- is required.
It behooves western governments to begin taking these alternative theories seriously- and design future energy policies based on possibility that they are correct. Whatever strategies for meeting the world's ferocious appetite for energy are devised today- will impact the planet for decades to come.
In this issue- we simply can't afford to be wrong.
Joel Bainerman
Joel Bainerman has been a writer on economic and Middle East issues since 1983. His published archive can be viewed on his website at www.joelbainerman.com
Driving something more fuel efficient isn't an option?
Kestas
Staff member
Or perhaps we should use up all the petroleum resources so our kids don't have to face the pain of conservation. This'll put everyone in the same boat and get rid of the geopolitical tension we now have over petroleum.
Its called freedom. Something this country was founded on. You drive what you want as long as you can afford it. There is no shortage of oil, each year for the last 20 years the proven reserves of oil have incresed despite increased usage each year.
Dan
JHRZ2, I will have to respectfully say that you're excessively using our resources, and are part of the problem. Please discontinue use of all modern conveniences so that the rest of us will no longer be burderned by their use. To be more eco-friendly, a grass hut provides excellent shade, and fig leafs make great fashion statements.
In an article in the local paper a month or so back a gentleman bought his wife a diesel Excursion in order to significantly reduce fuel costs; they're making their own biodiesel at less than 90 cents a gallon :^) He was using it in the diesel pickup, and they realized that they were spending less for fuel than in the smaller gasoline engined vehicles that they had.
The biggest impact that we have on fuel costs is our insistance on lower density housing, where we can't take advantage of mass transit.
The biggest impact that we have on fuel costs is our insistance on lower density housing, where we can't take advantage of mass transit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked