Obama lies about our oil reserves debunked. (Iraq, generation, gasoline)

[MTAtech]

This is an interesting read:
The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply
Mathematically, drilling more oil is a losing game.
by Evar D. Nering, professor emeritus of mathematics at Arizona State University

When I discussed the exponential function in the calculus classes I taught, I used consumption of a non-renewable natural resource as an example; since there is a national debate about energy policy, it may be useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making rational decisions about resource use.

Here’s the hypothetical situation: we have a 100 year supply of oil—that is, oil that would last 100 years if consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at a rate that grows by 5% each year. How long will it last under these circumstances? It’s an easy calculation, about 36 years.

But let’s say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a 1,000 year supply. At the same annual growth rate of 5%, how long will that last? The answer is about 79 years. Then let’s say we make a striking discovery of more oil—a bonanza—and now we have a 10,000 year supply. At the same rate of our growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years. Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, but all are considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this analysis is that it really doesn’t matter what the estimates are; there is no way that a supply-side attack on America’s energy problem can work.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is allowed to grow at a steady 5% annual rate, a full doubling of the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth by half – to 2.5%. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use it at the currently increasing rate. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is. This math reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing to solve the energy problem by simply increasing supply.

Building more power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do, because it will encourage more use. To avoid dire consequences, we need to find the political smarts and will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to zero—or even begin to consume less. I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people are talking about when they advocate conservation; the steps they recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our vehicles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce the growth rate. Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It means basic conservation techniques that work. It means shifting to renewable energy sources. It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

China added 10,000,000 vehicles to the roads just last year. Demand is growing and will outstrip any conceivable new oil finds.

Moreover, the new finds are in shale and sand, which are expensive to extract. If oil dropped below $50/bbl., the North Dakota boom would dry up as it would no longer be profitable.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by subsound

From what you have shown of your abilities in understanding the printed word so far I don't find this shocking.

Thank you for that personal attack, which is based on nothing but your hatred. Typical.

Let's see if you have the ability to understand any of this:

Black Gold: Thomas Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere and the Deep-Earth theories of the Origin of Petroleum

Peak Oil Theory vs. Russian-Ukrainian Modern Theory by George Crispin

Wake up America: Obama's Lies Vs Reality: America Has 60 Times More Oil Than Obama Tells Americans

My interest in this stems from the years I worked in the industry, reading news letters etc. that we received. We provided underwater TV inspection systems for the offshore oil and commercial diving industries. I did some time both in the field service department, and later the marketing department, of two companies (not at the same time, obviously).

What experience do you have in the oil industry that makes you more qualified to render an opinion?

My guess is that you have none.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by Shankapotomus

I see having been smacked down in this thread:

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...ng-what-4.html

You've moved on to continue your Obama bashing in a new thread of your own.

Couldn't deal with my line of questioning, could you?

Are you stalking me? OMG, we have a stalker!!!

Can't deal with criticism? Hmmm?

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Thank you for that personal attack, which is based on nothing but your hatred. Typical.

Let's see if you have the ability to understand any of this:

Black Gold: Thomas Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere and the Deep-Earth theories of the Origin of Petroleum

Peak Oil Theory vs. Russian-Ukrainian Modern Theory by George Crispin

Wake up America: Obama's Lies Vs Reality: America Has 60 Times More Oil Than Obama Tells Americans

My interest in this stems from the years I worked in the industry, reading news letters etc. that we received. We provided underwater TV inspection systems for the offshore oil and commercial diving industries. I did some time both in the field service department, and later the marketing department, of two companies (not at the same time, obviously).

What experience do you have in the oil industry that makes you more qualified to render an opinion?

My guess is that you have none.

IF it's true that you have years in the oil business then you should KNOW that drillers often return to "dry" wells for 2 simple reasons:

1) "Dry" wells are never really dry - they simply get to the point where the amount of oil they produce is no longer worth the cost needed to extract it. As oil prices rise it becomes economically feasible again to operate them. Also, over time oil in the fringes of the reserve eventually seep back into large pools (where the main supply was located to begin with). That doesn't mean more oil was created, it just means that previously dispersed oil that was not collected in the initial drilling and extraction phase has collected in one area again - thus making it worthwhile to restart the well.

2) Drilling and extraction techniques improve all the time - and thus oil that was unrecoverable before can become so when a new technique is used. Same type of thing is true in regards to DISCOVERING sources of oil - new and better techniques lead to new discoveries that we didn't know were there previously.

The fact that you DON'T seem to realize those facts indicates that:

1) You sure didn't learn much from your time in the oil business

or

2) You never spent time in the oil business.

The theory you speak of is bunk.

Ken

[subsound]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Thank you for that personal attack, which is based on nothing but your hatred. Typical.

Let's see if you have the ability to understand any of this:

Black Gold: Thomas Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere and the Deep-Earth theories of the Origin of Petroleum

Peak Oil Theory vs. Russian-Ukrainian Modern Theory by George Crispin

Wake up America: Obama's Lies Vs Reality: America Has 60 Times More Oil Than Obama Tells Americans

My interest in this stems from the years I worked in the industry, reading news letters etc. that we received. We provided underwater TV inspection systems for the offshore oil and commercial diving industries. I did some time both in the field service department, and later the marketing department, of two companies (not at the same time, obviously).

What experience do you have in the oil industry that makes you more qualified to render an opinion?

My guess is that you have none.

Well, no. It's your ability to demand links and willfully ignore the response, your statement that you simply don't understand how fossil fuels are created so it isn't true, and the ability to confuse all/single as well as the 1950's with the 1940's. If you feel so personally about making such silly childish mistakes, then you should correct them instead of complaining when they are pointed out.

Those all reference the same thing, abiotic oil. It outright states that in all the links. a long disproved theoretical BS.

Using the argument technique of having experience so you know better is called the argument from misleading authority. To be an electronics salesman and in the marketing department providing services to an oil company does not imply (or require) knowledge of chemistry or physics. It certainly doesn't make you as anywhere near as knowledgeable as a petroleum engineer or research chemists that have proven where fossil fuels come from.

I am surprised you would even admit that and make an attempt to make yourself sound like an authority on fossil fuels. That's hilarious.

If I wanted to buy a TV system that works underwater, I know who to go to now. If I want to know about the formation of fossil fuels...next time I will talk to some one more knowledgeable. Maybe the receptionist at the oil company could come post.

I don't rely on vague claims about my background, I provide facts people can look up and verify. If you know my background, feel free to tell me and show the world how much I don't know. If you don't, best not try and project your idea of what my background is on me.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Obama has been lying about our oil reserves in order to promote his "green energy" and pander to the radical environmentalists.

Oil in the US is not nationalized (although it could be -- Nationalizing While Non-White and Nationalizing While Non-Christian are heinous crimes punishable by death -- I would tell you to ask numerous heads-of-State who committed the horrible heinous crimes of Nationalizing While Non-White but they were all murdered by the US and Britain).

Oil reserved are reported by field owners, not the US government.

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Here is the truth. I have actually read of this theory a couple of years ago. Turns out, it is not a new theory, either. This makes much more sense than the "fossil fuel" theory.

Well, the reason it makes sense is because you Chemistry IQ is ZERO and your Organic Chemistry IQ is -99.

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

You're entitled to believe whatever you want...

Uh, wut? It isn't a matter of belief. This is organic chemistry, not Protestant Christianity.

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

... but there is no scientific evidence to support that oil is from plant matter and dead dinosaurs, either. That theory is ridiculous, if you ask me.

But no one is asking you, since you don't know what you're talking about.

Oil is nothing more than a series of carbon-hydrogen chains. It is organic, whether you want to believe it or not, and the fact that you don't believe it does not alter the fact that it is organic.

You would be better served by cancelling your internet bill and using that money to take a few classes in organic chemistry over the summer, so you become knowledgeable (assuming that's possible).

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

I first read about this in an oil and gas industry news letter some years ago. I think it makes much more sense, and it would explain why they are pumping oil out of previously thought to be dry wells.

If you have some evidence that the Russian scientists back in the 40's were crazy, post a link. Otherwise you are just looking like the typical "oil is the energy of the past" foolish thinker.

These Russian scientist don't buy into the insanity....

Plates Tectonic Evolution and Formation of Oil and Gas Provinces

Anatoly N. Dmitrievsky, Oil and Gas Problem Institute, Moscow, Russia

Inna E. Balanyuk and Oleg G. Sorokhtin, Institute of Oceanology Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Ludmila Dongaryan, Institute of Oceanology Russian Academy of Sciences


Some of the world's largest oil and gas basins such as the Persian Gulf may form by migration of hydrocarbons from Recent and old zones of underthrusting of lithosphere plates (subduction zones). Estimated potential reserves of this basin approach 100 billion tons, that is approximately one-third of the total resources of the world.

Throughout Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and the beginning of Cenozoic era the northeastern edge of the Arabian Peninsula was a passive continental margin of the Atlantic type. Thick bodies of clastic marine sediments accumulated on the continental slope at the foot of this margin. Throughout the Mesozoic, the continental slope of Arabia was situated
near an equatorial zone of high biological productivity, which made the concentration of organic matter in the Mesozoic deposits of this region relatively high. But the organic matter and hydrocarbons of these sediments remained dispersed and at that time there were no large accumulations of oil and gas.

With the beginning of closure of the Tethys Ocean the northward drift of the African-Arabian plate led to a gradual convergence of the continental margin of Arabia with the Zagros arc. Hydrocarbons generated in these zones via thermolysis of organic matter locked in sediments overriden by island arcs that thrust over the passive continental margins. This mechanism of generation and migration of HC is an extremely productive one. It explains enormous productivity of the process of oil and gas formation in subduction zones, compensating for the hydrocarbon losses during their migration into the pericratonic foredeeps.

AAPG International Conference
Barcelona, Spain
September 21-24, 2003

[government publication -- no copyright]

For those who were wondering, the Zagros Arc refers to the Zagros Mountains in Iran. Note that 80% of Iran's oil and natural gas are situation in this "arc" which encompasses the province of Khuzestan (Arabs -- not Persians -- previously part of Iraq/Kuwait before the mass-murderer Churchill got hold of map and worked his magic).

That's how oil is formed -- through clastic marine sediments laid down in over time, not magic fairy dust.

Organically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by subsound

Wow, really? Has this writer suffered a psychotic break?

No, just certifiably insane.

Originally Posted by subsound

They have really gone off the deep end with this one. It's a take on the theory of abiotic oil, a theory that was invented by a crazy Russian scientist in the 1950's. On the last 60 years no one has been able to prove a lick of it is true. Not that WorldNutDaily author Jerome Corsi hasn't been trying to...by publishing books and articles about how much he likes it.

No, not crazy; certifiably insane.

Corsi is grotesquely disingenuous. What he and others do is take known facts and then attempt to distort them by extrapolation, thereby engaging in a non-sequitur. It is true that chemical reactions like metal carbide synthesis and the "Fisher-Tropsch" process have been conducted successfully under strict laboratory conditions, but it is foolish to suggest that such reactions occur en masse below the Earth's surface.

What Corsi et al do is deceptively use lab methods to support the abiotic theory of oil and natural gas, when in fact the theory only extends to the production of natural gas (methane).

It is acknowledged in the scientific community that abiotic methane exists.

However, is wrong not to also state the fact that such abiotic methane exists in trace amounts only

Originally Posted by subsound

There is no scientific backing in this, and quite a lot of research disproving it. Belief in this is a sign of mentally illness not scientific savvy.

There is no research "disproving" it.

The Abiotic Theory disproves itself.

Over the last 70 years since the instruction of the Abiotic Oil Theory, there have only been....

....3 fields found.

Wow, 3 fields in 70 years -- impressive.

The first "field" was found somewhere in the Donets Basin (Ukraine). Second one somewhere near the Aral Sea, and the last "field" was in Vietnam. That would be Bach Ho (no kidding). It's a light no-Sulfur oil (0% Sulfur) with about 44% gasoil (meaning you could produce about 19 gallons of gasoline without recombining/reformulating, or you could make 19 gallons of the Extravagant American Life-Style™).

Here's the thing: even though abiotic techniques/methods were used to locate those three -- count them -- three fields -- there is no evidence that the oil itself is "abiotic."

The only way to prove the fields are abiotic is to go down into the geological formation. Personally, I'm not up to the task, but if any of you want to volunteer.....

Abiotic supporters claim that oil companies have "suppressed" abiotic oil, but that is sheer lunacy. The free market rules -- everywhere on Earth. There are many countries (including the US) that would give away all of their virgins to find just one abiotic field so that they would have their own oil, and perhaps even a surplus to sell on the world market.

So we have 100s of fields in the last 70 years discovered through non-abiotic means, versus 3 fields discovered through abiotic methods, and the oil from those 3 fields cannot be verified as abiotic.

I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Scientifically...

Mircea

[PullMyFinger]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Obama has been lying about our oil reserves in order to promote his "green energy" and pander to the radical environmentalists.

Here is the truth. I have actually read of this theory a couple of years ago. Turns out, it is not a new theory, either. This makes much more sense than the "fossil fuel" theory.

Articles: What If Oil and Natural Gas Are Renewable Resources?

Completely false idea that oil is a renewable resource. It took eons upon eons for oil to be formed. Completely false that oil is a result of rotting plant and animal life.

When the Earth was very young the atmosphere was poisonous with H2S gas and carbon monoxide as a result of so many collisions and the resulting explosions and heat. The first life forms were these tiny plankton like creatures that laid on top of the vast oceans. They breathed in the poisonous air and secreted one part of oil to one part of oxygen. When they died they made their way to the bottom of the oceans and that is where the vast oil fields were formed. Again, it took eons upon eons for this process to clean the air and form the oil.

So the planet Earth became this wonderful place of clean water and air and abundant life thanks to those little creatures.

Now these other little creatures called Humans have been spending the last 120 years pumping this oil to the surface and converting it back into poisonous gasses. The only reason the Earth is able to withstand this is the forests and rain forests that absorb much of the poison (we are cutting that down too).

So don't believe the pipe dream of oil being this endless resource. It's simply not true.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

Funny, Repubs are so used to their "Leaders" lying to them, they think all Leaders do that.

Bill Clinton, " I did n not have sexual relations with that women..."

Obama, "Pass this bill and unemployment will not go above 8%"

I'm sure it is easy to find many more.

[archineer]

Oil and gas are renewable resources, if you wait 250 odd million years.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by archineer

Oil and gas are renewable resources, if you wait 250 odd million years.

And everything is also Biodegradble....if you wait 250 odd million years.....but that does not stop the the left and their agenda....now does it...