The Coming Crisis

[Philter]

from another forum I follow on this particular topic:

> The meter is still running on Michael Lynch's $30 oil prediction.

> Here is some background...

>

> On Oct. 22, 2004 (ER message #64807), Ron Patterson provided the

> following paraphrased quote from Michael Lynch: "I think by the

time

> we have this meeting again [i.e., one year after Sept. 04 - AG]

oil

> will be under $30 a barrel. Everything driving [the] market is

short

> term and is not based on supply related problems."

>

> Michael Lynch more-or-less confirmed this forecast the next day

(ER

> message #64840): "As my remark makes clear, this is a guess at the

> price (I would say educated, but you can disagree) and accuracy at

> short-term price forecasting is extremely difficult and has never

> been done well by anyone."

>

> Perhaps fortified by prices that had dropped to the low $40s,

Michael

> Lynch wrote on Dec. 7, 2004 (ER message #67000): "Are people still

> convinced that my suggestion that oil will be $30 by next fall is

> unrealistic?"

>

> We haven't heard from Michael Lynch since early January, 2005 when

> the oil price was last under $45/barrel.

 

I've been following this story closely for two years now and it's tiring to be confronted with the same stories that have been discredited several years ago.

 

Thinking abiotic oil is going to magically save us is incredibly ignorant considering it didn't stop the US from peaking in the 70's. When exactly is this miracle supposed to happen?

 

Wewus, you're presenting wishful thinking in the face of geological reality. It's not a question of if it will happen; in most places it already has! How do you refute that basic fact?

[Philter]

Oil production curves of 42 different nations:

 

http://dieoff.org/42Countries/42Countries.htm

[Philter]

http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/teaching/N212/n212content/topics/topic5/04discoverandprodn.html

 

Another point that you're completely ignoring is that oil cannot be produced from the ground until it is discovered.

 

http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/teaching/N212/n212content/topics/topic5/image76.gif

 

We have to find the oil before we produce it. Unfortunately we've been finding less and less every year since the 60's.

 

In a like manner oil discovery and its production followed the same pattern in America. The peak period of discovery was in the 1950s. But the most productive year was a decade and a half later in 1970. America's annual oil production was never again so high as in 1970.

 

An oil geologist, M. King Hubbert, worked out this phase-shifted discovery/production relationship in 1956. He predicted that production would peak in 1969. He was mostly ignored and even ridiculed for his prediction. But it proved to be remarkably prescient. In 1973 Americans were standing by (and fighting over) empty gas pumps because we as a nation were unprepared for the decline of supplies after 1970.

 

Detroit was unprepared as well. In 1974 big car sales plummeted. They didn't recover until the 1990s.

 

But while the US had reached its oil production peak in 1970, world oil production continued to climb and the US became a major importer. (The US now imports over half its petroleum.) Political problems sometimes dogged the process. OPEC precipitated another shortage in 1979. But since 1979 petroleum products have been relatively plentiful and cheap.

 

Recently oil analysts have begun applying Hubbert principles to global oil production. More powerful computers help. Also, there's simply more data about the world's oil fields. And the locations and production potential of the world's present and future oil fields are now fairly well understood.

 

The analysts have concluded that some huge undiscovered and unexploited reservoirs remain in known areas of the world. Many more surely exist in parts of the world which have only recently become available for exploration.

 

But the discovery of global oil has peaked. It probably did so somewhere around 1960. (Hindsight makes this "prediction" easier.) From Hubbert we now know that this peak occurs when about half the supply has been discovered. (Plotting an oilfield's production yields a bell curve.) This fact allows one to calculate the total quantity of petroleum available for exploitation. Knowing this quantity allows one to predict when the production of the resource will peak, and when the supply will be exhausted.

 

From these recent analyses, it appears that global oil production will reach a maximum around 2010. That's the supply side of the equation. Unfortunately demand will continue to rise exponentially after 2010.

 

Thus, a collision between supply and demand is not far off. We got a taste of what such a collision is like in 1973 and again in 1979.

 

But this time there'll be no foreign oil to fill the void. The 2010 shortages will be worldwide and they will be permanent.

[FULLREFUSAL]

Lynch has been proven wrong...Hubbert's Curve has consistantly been proven correct since the US Oil production peak of 1971....The Sky isnt' falling Wewus be we certainly have a problem.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

Originally posted by TheWewus:

Yeah! Leave right now!

You already have our plane tickets? So sweet of you...

No you do. I thought we were heading for India!

Oh, yes, that's right. Have your bags packed and ready to go on June 23. I'll come pick you up. See you then!

[Wewus432]

Originally posted by FULLREFUSAL:

Lynch has been proven wrong...Hubbert's Curve has consistantly been proven correct since the US Oil production peak of 1971....The Sky isnt' falling Wewus be we certainly have a problem.

If you'll read that first link I gave. Lynch logically disproves Hubbert's Curve..... to me.

 

 

posted by Philter:

Recently oil analysts have begun applying Hubbert principles to global oil production. More powerful computers help. Also, there's simply more data about the world's oil fields. And the locations and production potential of the world's present and future oil fields are now fairly well understood.

Uh Lynch is one of, if not the leading oil analysts in the world. The oil companies pay him for his analysis. What he says makes a lot more sense than anything else I've read about Peak Oil. I'll take his opinion over yours or Seans, thank you very much.

 

If you can't stop the personal attacks, I suggest you take this debate to The Political Forum and see how many ignorant people there are over there.

 

One of the main causes behind the recent surge in gas prices is obvious, Manipulation by American companies .

[Philter]

Wewus, how can Hubbert's Peak be "wrong" when it already happened? He predicted it and it occurred much as he said it would. You seem to be a bit confused about the history of oil and the United States. Is it so wrong for me to say that you are ignorant about this subject? Is that a personal attack?

 

Here's a simple question for you. If oil in fact comes from abiotic sources, why do dry wells stay dry?

 

Here's another simple question: how do you explain the oil peaks that have already occured in numerous nations around the world? Instead of becoming increasingly dependent on the volatile Middle East, why aren't these countries making a fortune by tapping into your imagined infinitely vast reserves of abiotic oil?

 

Show me the money, Wewus. The fact remains that we are running out of oil. There's no doubt about it; the discovery trends I posted above clearly show that. You make no effort to address the evidence clearly before you.

 

As far as taking this to the political forum, I haven't mentioned a single political point. I have pointed out that on this subject, you are displaying ignorance. Sorry if that offends.

[Philter]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

Originally posted by FULLREFUSAL:

Lynch has been proven wrong...Hubbert's Curve has consistantly been proven correct since the US Oil production peak of 1971....The Sky isnt' falling Wewus be we certainly have a problem.

If you'll read that first link I gave. Lynch logically disproves Hubbert's Curve..... to me.

 

Only because you haven't read anything that's been posted after that.

posted by Philter:

Recently oil analysts have begun applying Hubbert principles to global oil production. More powerful computers help. Also, there's simply more data about the world's oil fields. And the locations and production potential of the world's present and future oil fields are now fairly well understood.

Uh Lynch is one of, if not the leading oil analysts in the world. The oil companies pay him for his analysis.

 

Probably not as much as they used to, considering he forecast oil prices to be below 30 dollars now. How's he doing? Oops.

 

One of the main causes behind the recent surge in gas prices is obvious, Manipulation by American companies .

I can believe that gasoline prices may be manipulated to some degree. However, I thought we were talking about oil prices. Was I wrong?

[Philter]

here's someone else making my point about abiotic oil... after the section I quoted the paper continues and offers a detailed and direct examination of the abiotic theory. Very clear and straightforward reading. Unfortunately I don't have much more patience on this topic because I went through all this myself a couple of years ago.

 

The debate over oil's origin has been going on since the 19th century. From the start, there were those who contended that oil is primordial - that it dates back to Earth's origin - or that it is made through an inorganic process, while others argued that it was produced from the decay of living organisms (primarily oceanic plankton) that proliferated millions of years ago during relatively brief periods of global warming and were buried under ocean sediment in fortuitous circumstances.

 

During the latter half of the 20th century, with advances in geophysics and geochemistry, the vast majority of scientists lined up on the side of the biotic theory. A small group of mostly Russian scientists - but including a tiny handful Western scientists, among them the late Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold - have held out for an abiotic (also called abiogenic or inorganic) theory. While some of the Russians appear to regard Gold as a plagiarist of their ideas, the latter's book The Deep Hot Biosphere (1998) stirred considerable controversy among the public on the questions of where oil comes from and how much of it there is. Gold argued that hydrocarbons existed at the time of the solar system's formation, and are known to be abundant on other planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and some of their moons) where no life is presumed to have flourished in the past.

 

The abiotic theory holds that there must therefore be nearly limitless pools of liquid primordial hydrocarbons at great depths on Earth, pools that slowly replenish the reservoirs that conventional oil drillers tap.

 

Meanwhile, however, the oil companies have used the biotic theory as the practical basis for their successful exploration efforts over the past few decades. If there are in fact vast untapped deep pools of hydrocarbons refilling the reservoirs that oil producers drill into, it appears to make little difference to actual production, as tens of thousands of oil and gas fields around the world are observed to deplete, and refilling (which is indeed very rarely observed) is not occurring at a commercially significant scale or rate except in one minor and controversial instance discussed below.

 

The abiotic theorists also hold that conventional drillers, constrained by an incorrect theory, ignore many sites where deep, primordial pools of oil accumulate; if only they would drill in the right places, they would discover much more oil than they are finding now. However, the tests of this claim are so far inconclusive: the best-documented "abiotic" test well was a commercial failure.

 

Thus even if the abiotic theory does eventually prove to be partially or wholly scientifically valid (and that is a rather big "if"), it might have little or no practical consequence in terms of oil depletion and the imminent global oil production peak.

 

That is the situation in a nutshell, as I understand it, and it is probably as much information as most readers will need or want on this subject. However, as this summary contradicts some of the more ambitious claims of the abiotic theorists, it may be helpful to present in more detail some of the evidence and arguments on both sides of the debate...

 

http://www.museletter.com/archive/150b.html

[Philter]

more from the same article... this is hard to explain away Wewus, so you're best off ignoring it, and instead complaining that I'm attacking you and then refusing to continue the conversation.

 

Biomarkers

 

The claims for the abiotic theory often seem overstated in other ways. J. F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas, who is one of the very few Western geologists to argue for the abiotic theory, writes, "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century."(12) Reading this sentence, one might assume that only a few isolated troglodyte pseudoscientists would still be living under the outworn and discredited misconception that oil can be formed from biological materials. However, in fact universities and oil companies are staffed with thousands of "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men [and women!] knowledgeable of thermodynamics" who not only subscribe to the biogenic theory, but use it every day as the basis for successful oil exploration. And laboratory experiments have shown repeatedly that petroleum is in fact produced from organic matter under the conditions to which it is assumed to have been subjected over geological time. The situation is actually the reverse of the one Kenny implies: most geologists assume that the Russian abiotic oil hypothesis, which dates to the era prior to the advent of modern plate tectonics theory, is an anachronism. Tectonic movements are now known to be able to radically reshuffle rock strata, leaving younger sedimentary oil- or gas-bearing rock beneath basement rock, leading in some cases to the appearance that oil has its source in Precambrian crystalline basement, when this is not actually the case.

 

Geologists trace the source of the carbon in hydrocarbons through analysis of its isotopic balance. Natural carbon is nearly all isotope 12, with 1.11 percent being isotope 13. Organic material, however, usually contains less C-13, because photosynthesis in plants preferentially selects C-12 over C-13. Oil and natural gas typically show a C-12 to C-13 ratio similar to that of the biological materials from which they are assumed to have originated. The C-12 to C-13 ratio is a generally observed property of petroleum and is predicted by the biotic theory; it is not merely an occasional aberration. (13)

 

In addition, oil typically contains biomarkers - porphyrins, isoprenoids, pristane, phytane, cholestane, terpines, and clorins - which are related to biochemicals such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin. The chemical fingerprint of oil assumed to have been formed from, for example, algae is different from that of oil formed from plankton. Thus geochemists can (and routinely do) use biomarkers to trace oil samples to specific source rocks.

 

Abiotic theorists hypothesize that oil picks up its chemical biomarkers through contamination from bacteria living deep in the Earth's crust (Gold's "deep, hot biosphere") or from other buried bio-remnants. However, the observed correspondences between biomarkers and source materials are not haphazard, but instead systematic and predictable on the basis of the biotic theory. For example, biomarkers in source rock can be linked with the depositional environment; that is, source rocks with biomarkers characteristic of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, while petroleum biomarkers associated with marine organisms are found only in marine sediments.

[Wewus432]

I never mentioned the word abiotic oil, but you keep going on and on about it. What I'm interested in is The Peak Oil theory, and that's all it is, and as far as scientific theories go it's far, far from proven.

 

I'm really sick of your condescending attitude, so no I won't continue to talk to you Mr. Wizard. Why don't you go peddle that Peak Oil bullshit somewhere else?

[Wewus432]

posted by Philter:

Show me the money, Wewus. The fact remains that we are running out of oil. There's no doubt about it; the discovery trends I posted above clearly show that. You make no effort to address the evidence clearly before you.

You don't know that. You're not a scientist or someone in the industry. What you are is some guy who read a bunch of shit on The Internet, and maybe read a book or two, and got sucked into some bullshit probably propagated by the oil industry to scare people into thinking there's an oil shortage.

[Chest Rockwell]

You don't know that. You're not a scientist or someone in the industry. What you are is some guy who read a bunch of shit on The Internet, and maybe read a book or two, and got sucked into some bullshit probably propagated by the oil industry to scare people into thinking there's an oil shortage.

 

Good for you Wewus! Fear Incorporated is the name of the USA game. See "Bowling for Columbine" for the details.

[geoffk]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

posted by Philter:

Show me the money, Wewus. The fact remains that we are running out of oil. There's no doubt about it; the discovery trends I posted above clearly show that. You make no effort to address the evidence clearly before you.

You don't know that. You're not a scientist or someone in the industry. What you are is some guy who read a bunch of shit on The Internet, and maybe read a book or two, and got sucked into some bullshit probably propagated by the oil industry to scare people into thinking there's an oil shortage.

So the person you've quoted is from the industry, but the industry is making the whole peak oil thing up so we shouldn't believe the peak oil theory because we aren't scientists or in the industry which you believe is creating this whole issue. So the only folks we can believe are in the industry which is making the whole thing up? Sounds like a prescription for cynical inaction to me.

[philbo_Tangent]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

How do you know there's a finite amount of oil?

 

How do you know that oil comes from dinosaurs?

 

That theory has never been conclusively proven. Has it?

Geez, I hate to jump into somebody elses flame battle, but NASA never conclusively proved we've been to outer space either... If you are determined not to believe something, the evidence becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

[Philter]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

I never mentioned the word abiotic oil, but you keep going on and on about it. What I'm interested in is The Peak Oil theory, and that's all it is, and as far as scientific theories go it's far, far from proven.

 

I'm really sick of your condescending attitude, so no I won't continue to talk to you Mr. Wizard. Why don't you go peddle that Peak Oil bullshit somewhere else?

Sure it's been proven. In the 1950's Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak around 1970. It peaked in 1972. And that is Hubbert's Peak, which you are for some reason insisting doesn't exist.

 

Since then, the same methodology has been used to successfully predict peaks in other nations. You can look at the 42 nations above that I listed if you don't believe that production peaks. The only thing that has kept the world from peaking is the Middle East. Most other regions have already peaked, including Europe, Asia, and the United States.

 

This makes you angry. You don't like defending a losing argument. But it's not opinion, it's fact. There is no need to go looking for some vast global conspiracy to explain simple geologic phenomenon. Such a conspiracy makes no sense because most countries would have to act against their own national interest to participate in it. Occum's Razor states that the simple answer is usually correct. The earth's resources are, in fact, finite.

 

Sorry if you feel that being corrected amounts to being treated in a condescending fashion. I don't have the patience to dance around the discussion with niceties. And you still haven't answered any of the direct questions I posed for you.

 

But I didn't expect you to. Once you started complaining about personal attacks I knew you were looking for a way out of dealing with the topic at hand.

[John Sayers]

I heard the professor who wrote the Little Green Handbook being interviewed.

 

He has gone to great lengths to make sure all the info in the book is correct and not just heresay and rumour which he says is prevalent in a great deal of scientific writings these days. One writer makes an uninformed statement, then another writer quotes him etc etc.

 

He estimates a world oil peak in 2010.

 

cheers

john

[Philter]

Yes, I often have the impression that in many fields there are no true talents or leaders alive today, and in many areas no one really knows what they're doing.

 

On an aside John, I think that in passing I've read that the governments of both Australia and New Zealand have been more open about recognizing Peak Oil and preparing their economies for it. Do you know anything about this?

[nursers]

I'm not aware of it in regard to Australia - wouldn't surprise me if NZ were on the ball though..

[Philip OKeefe]

Parts of Asia have scarcely been tapped.. Siberia is probably the last untapped natural resource treasure chest on the planet. I just hope that we start using our resources more wisely and consider not only the short term needs, but put some effort into long term planning as well.

 

It's not practical yet, but if you wish to consider one possible energy source, do a Google search on methane hydrate... pretty nasty stuff with all the usual hydrocarbon disadvantages... but there is a LOT of it. Extracting it and using it safely (for ourselves and the environment) are the problems.

[Jimbroni]

Yeah, I've heard of methane hydrate. Also, we do not have the technology to scour ocean floors for potential oil or natural gas. However, this where we get into trouble. There's alot of alternatives out there, but as John was saying there is so much hype even within the scientific community, that end users do not know what direction to aim towards. Do you blame, engine manufacturers for not jumping on ethanol or methanol or biodiesel band wagons, when we can't even give them straight beef on oil?

[Wewus432]

Originally posted by philbo_Tangent:

Originally posted by TheWewus:

How do you know there's a finite amount of oil?

 

How do you know that oil comes from dinosaurs?

 

That theory has never been conclusively proven. Has it?

Geez, I hate to jump into somebody elses flame battle, but NASA never conclusively proved we've been to outer space either... If you are determined not to believe something, the evidence becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

Excuse me, asking someone to clarify their position, does not mean I believe the opposite, but if it makes you feel any better I'll withdraw the questions.

[woodlakesound]

I just read 'The Oil We Eat" and can conclude that this is much of what ails the world we have constructed over modern times. So much inefficiency in carrying out the most basic of human needs, nutrition....and how it's been perverted into such useless entertainment.

I have been vegetarian for about 30 years and that includes staying clear of all those meat and dairy substitutes. Actually the only cooked foods I eat are root vegetables, rice, oatmeal, etc. usually made simply.

I sometimes wonder what society would be like if everyone had adopted this kind of philosophy with regards to diet. After reading that article I can easily see what differences there would be.

[philbo_Tangent]

Originally posted by TheWewus:

Originally posted by philbo_Tangent:

Originally posted by TheWewus:

How do you know there's a finite amount of oil?

 

How do you know that oil comes from dinosaurs?

 

That theory has never been conclusively proven. Has it?

Geez, I hate to jump into somebody elses flame battle, but NASA never conclusively proved we've been to outer space either... If you are determined not to believe something, the evidence becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

Excuse me, asking someone to clarify their position, does not mean I believe the opposite, but if it makes you feel any better I'll withdraw the questions.

Wewus, sorry, I shouldn't have called it a flame battle - it was simply a discusion.. No hard feelings...

[Wewus432]

None at all towards anyone. I'm still kind of digesting all the information I learned the last few days. Definitely a subject of interest to many people.

[Philter]

Originally posted by woodlakesound:

I just read 'The Oil We Eat" and can conclude that this is much of what ails the world we have constructed over modern times. So much inefficiency in carrying out the most basic of human needs, nutrition....and how it's been perverted into such useless entertainment.

I have been vegetarian for about 30 years and that includes staying clear of all those meat and dairy substitutes. Actually the only cooked foods I eat are root vegetables, rice, oatmeal, etc. usually made simply.

I sometimes wonder what society would be like if everyone had adopted this kind of philosophy with regards to diet. After reading that article I can easily see what differences there would be.

Yeah, eating meat is an extremely high waste of energy compared to a vegetarian diet. The higher you move up the food chain in your diet, the more energy is lost in the process.

 

That being said, I sure love to eat meat. But a future with less available energy for food production probably means a future with less meat and higher prices.

[robmix]

Originally posted by Philter:

[/qb]

Yeah, eating meat is an extremely high waste of energy compared to a vegetarian diet. The higher you move up the food chain in your diet, the more energy is lost in the process.

 

That being said, I sure love to eat meat. But a future with less available energy for food production probably means a future with less meat and higher prices. [/QB]

 

Unless we all go back to hunting for our food.

[Mr.WOW]

The Khan network will kill us all sooner than the oil will.

[Philter]

Originally posted by robmix:

Originally posted by Philter:

Yeah, eating meat is an extremely high waste of energy compared to a vegetarian diet. The higher you move up the food chain in your diet, the more energy is lost in the process.

 

That being said, I sure love to eat meat. But a future with less available energy for food production probably means a future with less meat and higher prices. [/QB]

Unless we all go back to hunting for our food. [/QB]

 

I'm just guessing here but I imagine that if every person in the US hunted for their dinner deer would be extinct in under a week

[Ouizel]

Yep, and then we'd be back to the primarily vegetarian diet.

 

I still love a good cheeseburger, though.