This message was self-deleted by its author

[cherokeeprogressive]

This message was self-deleted by its author (cherokeeprogressive) on Fri Jun 22, 2012, 09:05 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[LARED]

1. So peak oil is a farce? nt

[NoMoreWarNow]

8. lots of people think so

certainly, the idea that oil is on the verge of permanent depletion seems to be an over-simplification.

[Javaman]

12. Do you know what Peak Oil means?

It means the inability to meet demand. It has zero to do with running out.

I would suggest you do a little reading on what Peak Oil is about and scrub your brain of that ridiculous self generating oil BS.

[deadinsider]

17. Yeah. Peak Oil:

Think of a bell-curve. You know the point in the middle that hits the bell where it hangs: that's peak oil.

What the bell-curve tells us is this (like Javaman said above but I'm dumbing it down):
$6
It's not 'exactly' the 'inability' to meet 'demand'. That could feasibly happen, enen after 'peak' oil... (holy god am i using apostrophes too much!)

Anywho, Peak Oil doesn't have to do with demand (even indirectly it doesn't matter). What it entirely has to do with is SUPPLY.

Imagine you have 10 dollar bills in your pocket. And you don't, and can't, get any more money other than that. That is your total supply.

Now: after me, or your friends, asking you for a couple quarters here and there, your supply starts depleting. But you don't have to worry, nickel and diming you certainly won't kill you off.

Welp, a coupe weeks now we've been getting you spare change. Now let's say you're down to $6. Still good. But what happens at $5?

The first half of your ten bucks I could borrow like crazy before you were half way depleted of your mom's allowance.

The $5 (FIVE DOLLARS) represents peak oil. You can never ever borrow out more than $5 dollars now. Ever. That's all there is.

And then, as the world is doing with oil everyday, some turd or another manages to fanagle another .10 from you. Just like America (and China) is doing to the world oil supply. We are now, at this moment, past peak oil; meaning we have already bummed down to you $5 money supply. We can ask for more, but never ever more than $5.

Get it. Hope so...

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. ummm

IBTM?

I don't really understand the reasoning here.

"Fossil fuel" is a misleading term. It leads one to believe that crude oil is no longer produced by heat/pressure/chemical reactions deep within Earth.

Because fossils are no longer produced?!

It seems to me that the term leads one to believe that fossil fuel takes a long time to produce. How the overall production rate compares with our consumption rate is another question. Where fossil fuel is being produced, and how accessible the new fuel is for our consumption, are further questions.

At this very moment, crude oil is going into storage tanks at a rate higher than it is being refined.

I'll trust that that is true at the moment, but it isn't obvious how it connects to what you've said or to what you go on to say.

More exploration finds more oil, consistently.

That's true of loose change in my house, too, but the fact isn't very relevant to my financial planning. I'm not saying that oil exploration is irrelevant, just that a lot is missing from the argument.

The thing we should be working on isn't necessarily ENDING the use of "fossil fuels", but sequestering and storing the greenhouse gases produced by the burning of "fossil fuels".

I look at this differently, but not oppositely. If you're saying that we shouldn't worry about running out of fossil fuels, I more or less agree with that; what I think is likely to happen (under Business As Usual) is that the cost of extracting them will increase, and greenhouse gas emissions will increase concomitantly. Whether or not those predictions are true, I'm more worried about reining in GHG emissions than about conserving fossil fuels per se.

This would effectively extend the time needed to perfect alternative forms of energy and would be much more feasible economically.

Dunno about ending the use of fossil fuels, but I think it would be blithe to generalize that it is more feasible economically to sequester X tons of CO₂ than to avoid emitting it in the first place. I'm not a kneejerk opponent of sequestration efforts, but some of them are expensive and speculative; others are wishful. It seems to me that we could invest many billions of dollars in energy efficiency right now and be assured of a high return on our investment. For instance, too much of our low-income housing budget is going to energy companies to heat the air (that's before GHGs are considered), and too little into sealing cracks and improving insulation -- which would put people to work, too.

[William Seger]

3. It's not a "daily" process

Organic matter that decomposes in air does not turn into fossil fuels. "Biogenisis" of fossil fuels begins with decomposition by anaerobic bacteria, so the organic matter first needs to be buried so it's not exposed to air. That would be the result of relatively infrequent catastrophic events such as flooding, not a daily process. But even if we assume it's more or less continually happening somewhere on Earth, there is no justification whatsoever for your claim that it's happening faster than we are extracting it.

[Javaman]

4. it appears as if you are part of the "anaerobic fossil fuels crew"

then please explain to me why the fields in Titusville, Pennsylvania have not filled back up with oil? After all that's where oil was first discovered in the US and was quickly depleted. So after 100 years how come that's not producing oil in copious quantities?

This "theory" has been completely disproven, but then again this is the Creative Spectulation forum after all.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Yessss... Finally. Say it with me. Speck-You-Lay-Shun. Of the creative type.

It's actually part of a short story I wrote about a time when being wrong is criminalized.

[NoMoreWarNow]

10. that well may not be deep enough to tap into abiotic oil sources

that one example hardly disproves the overall point, and there are other wells that have refilled elsewhere.

[Javaman]

11. "other wells that have refilled elsewhere."

Name one.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Nature will store excess CO2 as carbohydrate.

With global warming, growing seasons will be extended and more carbohydrate will be produced. Carbohydrate is the base material for fossil fuel production. Next Tuesday (plus millions of years) there will be no shortage of fossil fuel but there may be a shortage of animals to burn it.

[libodem]

7. Yep

We're crapping ourselves out of the peetree (sp) dish at an alarming rate. You know the biology, auger auger plates you smear with bacterial to watch it grow. It's the waste products that collapse the experiment. Happening to the planet at an alarming rate.

How do you spell petri? And auger auger? I forget?

Here come the spelling demerit points. Oh, gosh.

[NoMoreWarNow]

9. petri dish and agar

but agree with your basic point

[libodem]

13. I ponder the abiotic oil theory

But don't hydrogen or the carbon chains have to come from somewhere? OTOH, I do think oil speculators drive the system around with their cocks, trying to predict when we will run out of the 'precious' commodity to make it seem more scares, is what makes capitalism supply and demand theory, a manipulatable variable in price fixing and tampering. I need to fix scarce up above but sometimes my phone won't let me touch down where I need to drop in.

[Javaman]

14. Do you know the definition of Peak Oil?

it's not about running out. It's about not meeting demand.

As China and India grow, meeting demand is the challenge.

That is Peak Oil.

[libodem]

15. Now I do

Figured it was running out. Musta figured wrong. Thanks for helping me get it right. Helps to know what you think you know, when yammering on about it.

[deadinsider]

18. Java guy; Peak Oil is about SUPPLY

What peak oil means is that we've exhausted half the worlds supply of oil; all oil.

So that means we can never 'up' our production really, or increase the supply of oil beyond what we could do before peak oil.

Demand had nothing to do with peak oil. Peak Oil represents half the world's petroleum resources. Thats is; that's the definition.

So once past peak, meaning we used half of the world's black gold, we can never supply more, no matter how much we try.

If we have a burger and I eat half, when you get the other half that's all you can eat is a half - you can't eat a whole burger.

Demand will become extremely important, well we see it now, once we're past peak oil becaue it becomes more and more like a raree-earth mineral - so to speak.

[Javaman]

19. Here you go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1129246

[deadinsider]

20. Actually it's both, I guess..

"Once we have used up about half of the original reserves, oil production becomes ever more likely stop growing and begin a terminal decline, hence 'peak'."

Taking a quote from your link...

Apparently it about supply and demand. But my understanding was always once we are done with half, thats 'peak.' Half is gone, no matter what the demand is...

[Javaman]

22. I agree, but first it's demand. Then it's supply.

as population grows demand goes up. When demand is unable to be supplied then it becomes a supply issue.

But supply problems only happen when their isn't enough product.

Right now, the good sweet crude is just about gone, however, there is lots of the sour sulfur rich crappy crude left. That is the rub. That sour stuff is harder to get to. It takes longer to refine, more money to refine and is locate in tar sands, shale and in some of the deepest regions in the ocean (huge pressures and heat require new tech to be able extract it). More over, the larger fields are running out or fouling and require new tech to refine the fouled crude.

We have passed peak in production, meaning the world is hard pressed to get more out of the ground with current tech. That is where meeting demand becomes a problem. Next will be the failing of the smaller reserves and the inability to find adequate new fields to supplement the loss. That is when things get really scary.

We are just at the beginning of plateau. We will have a really bumpy ride for a few years. When the good stuff is all gone an we have to count on only the sour stuff to fuel our needs then things will begin to drop fast.

this is why many of the current models show that around 2020 as being the break point. But that is also contingent on the worlds economy bouncing back and the need for oil increases.

This is the main reason why Peak Oil hasn't hit us full bore just yet. The recession/depression has been a blessing of sorts because in a down economy, people use less raw materials, thus delaying Peak.

Ironically, the debt crisis in Europe might mitigate Peak even further. Which opens up a paradox, during this time nations could be exploring alternative means for power, yet, because of the bad economy, nations don't have the capital to spend to explore those other means. It becomes a snake feeding on it's tail.

[deadinsider]

23. Again: we disagree on the terminology, but our endgame is the same

I hate to repeat myself but I do believe (sketchy word now-a-days) 'Peak Oil' is representing supply. Demand can go up and down, but 'Peak' is representing the total world oil reserves.

Once we produced half the entire worlds supply, demand be damnedd, that is 'Peak Oil.' Doesn't matter what demand is... supply does not change when measuring the 'total' reserves of fossil fuels.

If I had $10 and half of that, of course if $5, it doesn't matter that at $7 or $6.21 humans were 'demanding' more money from that 'well'. There was only $10 to begin with, and whether humans demanded more or less from me, once I'm past $5, then I can never borrow more than $5. When I was at $8, I could borrow $8. When I was at $6.38, I can borrow $6.38. But once I pass $5, now matter how much I try to develop or get to the money quicker, I can only borrow out $5 or less.

Java, if we were living on an island, and there were 100 persons (you and me included), we must have a food supply. But unlike normal horticulture, let's say we can't grow any more food; just can't make any more food for argument's sake.

So, 100 people, and we have 10,000 pds of food. We live ok for awhile, maybe some die and some are born. Doesn't matter to TRUE SUPPLY. Whether we got used to living by eating a lot or eating a little. It does not affect TRUE SUPPLY.

I'm saying that those 100 people will get used to having a certain appetite. But the TRUE SUPPLY doesn't, and never, changes. How much we've used does; but the ORIGINAL true supply can not change.

We harvest the food, starting out at 5 lbs a day, but by week 2 we're rolling with 30 lbs a day. Demand is increasing, but the TRUE SUPPLY, what we began with, doesn't change. By week 3, at 40 lbs a person shit starts to hit the fan. We've increased 'demand' but the TRUE SUPPLY is not changing; the amount we've consumed of it is; there's less and less food, and no way to make more.

On this island, you have some staticians et al and they tell you that there was 10,000 pds of food to begin with, but now we're down to 6,000. They tell you that when we hit 5,000 lbs (PEAK) we must start rationing because, no matter what aggregate (total) demand is, we have consumed half of our food supply. Before reaching 5,000 we could alwasy satisfy an increase in demand. But after PEAK we can no longer satisty an increase in demand.

After peak, because its supply, we can never satisfy an increase in demand. Before yes, not matter how close to HALF you get. But once you hit half: that's peak production and any increase in demand can not, and will not, be satisfied.

[JDPriestly]

16. Reminds me of a story.

I was sitting on a bench in a courthouse around the time of the BP spill. (Called for jury duty.)

A criminal attorney, don't know whether he was defense or prosecution, but I suspect defense, sat next to me.

We prospective jurors were filling out forms, and the attorneys were chatting about the BP spill. Suddenly the attorney next to me blurted out, "I've been wondering how that oil got under there in the first place."

Everyone looked up and stared. The ignorance of it . . . . . ..

You should visit the Tar Pits in Los Angeles sometime. Or read about how oil is formed. Yes, oil is being made all the time -- olive oil from olives for example.

You might start with a textbook on the chemistry of carbons. There may be courses online about it.

Stunning.

And no, I did not serve on that jury.

[deadinsider]

21. So we're gonna power everything with olives? nt

[JDPriestly]

24. Thanks. I was trying to point out what you are pointing out.

But oil is a finite resource. There is so much of it. The portion of it that was easy to bring to our gas pumps has been exploited. We are now down to the expensive stuff.

We have to find replacements and cut back on our energy consumption -- both.

Olive oil is really, really hard to make as I understand it.

So, my reference to olive oil was a bit of a joke.

But many people don't understand how important petroleum is to our lives. We should not just burn up what we have and will be able to find. We need to find alternative energy so that we can continue to use the limited amount and very expensive to produce oil for more important things than bringing our groceries back from the supermarket.

[gyroscope]

25. I think its too late to scale back

there's too much suburban sprawl, which relies on tremendous quantities of oil and automobiles to function. and America is like 95% sprawl.

how do you change that? I think its too late to tear it all down and rebuild everything. doesn't seem like a realistic option. its like we're on a runaway freight train that can't be stopped and its heading toward the cliff.

[karlaa]

26. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)