[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= spanky] This is a presentation by geologist Colin Campbell PhD on Peak Oil. Campbell also founded the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO <a href="//www.peakoil.net">www.peakoil.net</a>) <br /> <br /> For anyone who might not be familiar with the term, Peak Oil is a shorthand way of referring to an imminent (according to Campbell and some other petroleum geologists, oil industry analysts and academics) one time peak in the world's oil production followed within a few years by a subsequent permanent, year by year decline in production. <br /> <br /> It's a slide presentation in Flash Format (so you need the Macromedia Flash software installed on your PC) with audo commentary by Campbell. <br /> <br /> You can read more about the presentation here:<br /> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/duyvv">pressbox.co.uk</a><br /> <br /> Here is a direct link to the presentation itself:<br /> <a href="http://tinyurl.co.uk/blgp">Campbell Presentation on Peak Oil</a><br /> <br /> Took a few minutes to load and get going on a high speed connection. Not sure how well it works on dial up.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> You've gotta be kidding right?<br /> <br /> Why is it that all 'progressives' fall into the game of peak oil?<br /> <br /> All sheep.<br /> <br />

[Marcarc]

Is that an example of your sharp incites and investigative powers?

[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Is that an example of your sharp incites and investigative powers?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I'm just pointing out how all progressives believe in 'peak oil'.<br /> <br /> They do so because they know that it will help them further their other B.S. policies.<br /> <br /> It's total crap.

[Marcarc]

hmmm, more of that good hard hitting 'evidence' we've been hearing so much about. Perhaps you can rearrange the same point in yet another way to make it sound as if it contains something productive. Good thing we have such rebuttals to the stories posted here. Boy, I miss the old days last year when we had that guy, what was that crazy guys name? He was shrill and conservative, but at least he had some content.

[Dr Caleb]

D Baker. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> <br /> <br /> He was nuts. Still posts here Anon, once in a while though.<br />

[Guest]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] hmmm, more of that good hard hitting 'evidence' we've been hearing so much about. Perhaps you can rearrange the same point in yet another way to make it sound as if it contains something productive. Good thing we have such rebuttals to the stories posted here. Boy, I miss the old days last year when we had that guy, what was that crazy guys name? He was shrill and conservative, but at least he had some content.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> ???<br /> <br /> I'm not here to debate peak oil. It's like debating Loch Ness or Y2K.<br /> <br /> Whenever I do find something worth tearing into...I go balls deep over it in my blog.<br /> <br />

[Marcarc]

Yes, in fact OIL DOESN"T exist, it's a tool by those Ottawa bureaucrats to keep US paying taxes at an exhorbitant level. Ever notice how the gas nozzle fits right inside the gas tank on a car-you don't even see it-WHY?? Because nothing comes out of it! When have you ever seen it?? THe truth is that cars run on the little tiny bit of oil that goes in your crankcase and change every year. GAS doesn't exist! It's all so the federal government can suck all the money out of your wallet. They even add that smell to the pump so you THINK you're pumping gas, and a tiny bit of ethanol (another government conspiracy-more later) squirts out at the end. It's automatic. Want proof? Next time you get gas when the trigger clicks, pull the nozzle out-YOu'll get ethanol all over you! That's proof positive!

[Spanky]

[QUOTE BY= Rabblewatch]<br /> <br /> SNIP<br /> <br /> You've gotta be kidding right?<br /> <br /> Why is it that all 'progressives' fall into the game of peak oil?<br /> <br /> All sheep.<br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Sorry I haven't responded earlier Rabblewatch, but I haven't checked back in on this forum for a while and I had forgotten I had started a thread in here with the link to Campbell's talk. I came by today to post about the upcoming Jan 12 debate on Peak Oil with Michael Ruppert and Jerome Corsi (see the anouncement on Ruppert's home page at <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com">www.fromthewilderness.com</a>)<br /> <br /> But anyway to get back to your response to your post, no I am not kidding.<br /> <br /> It is generally recognized that China is in a scramble to secure energy supplies and their negotiators are traversing the world trying to ensure it can secure adequate oil to meet its needs, including investing in the Canadian tar sands where oil companies and governments are sinking billions into developing the infrastructure to get at the oil locked up in the tar sands. Why would China go to all that expense and trouble and risk stepping on US toes in what the US surely sees as its own back yard? Surely with the resources at the command of the Chinese government, couldn't they just drill somewhere for some of the plentiful abiotic oil? Or is the entire Chinese government held hostage by the oil industry as well? Regarding the mounting concern in China as to how they will meet their energy needs, see this article in the Washington Post:<br /> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201546_pf.html">Big Shift in China's Energy Policy"</a> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE:Washington Post]<br /> Concern is mounting about future prospects for China's domestic oil production, which supplies about two-thirds of the country's crude oil needs. China's government estimates that it will need 600 million tons of crude oil a year by 2020, more than triple its expected output. Worldwide, the best oil fields are already claimed.<br /> <br /> For the United States, Europe and Japan, the oil shocks of the 1970s supplied the lessons that have shaped their thinking about energy. China is a latecomer to the vagaries of the global energy business. It is grappling with how to manage dramatic growth and soaring demand for energy at the same time it confronts the implications of interventionist U.S. foreign policy.<br /> <br /> "Many people argue that oil interests are the driving force behind the Iraq war," said Zhu Feng, a security expert at Beijing University. "For China, it has been a reminder and a warning about how geopolitical changes can affect its own energy interests. So China has decided to focus much more intently to address its security."<br /> <br /> Throughout China's modern history, and particularly under Communist Party rule, the country's leaders have sought self-sufficiency -- a drive fueled by nationalist pride and the experience of colonialism, which fed notions that the outside world wants to prevent China's rise as a great power.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> You would think someone in the Chinese government would have figured out by now that there is no need for concern as somewhere in the vast territory controled by China they should be able to get at that plentiful supply of abiotic oil, or find a friendly government somewhere else who would let them drill on their territory for a share of that plentiful abiotic oil. <br /> <br /> If abiotic oil exists in such plentiful, easily accessible amounts why don't the geniuses promoting this theory get together some investors and go drill for it. They should be able to undercut the current price and make a killing, recovering their initial investment many times over.<br /> <br /> Actually they did try that at least once and it apparently didn't work out too well. See the 2nd article "If abiotic oil exists, where is it?" linked below which describes the results of the abiotic theorists drilling in Sweden for abiotic oil.<br /> <br /> It's obvious Rabblewatch has already made up his mind that abiotic oil is plentiful and the Peak Oil theory must therefore be a scam, for any lurkers or others who who are still researching the matter, here are some responses by conventional geologist and in one case a chemistry professor (Ugo Bardi)to the abiotic oil theory. <br /> <br /> No Free Lunch, Part 1 of 3<br /> A Critique of Thomas Gold's Claims for Abiotic Oil<br /> by<br /> Jean Laherrere<br /> edited by<br /> Dale Allen Pfeiffer<br /> <br /> The following paper is a critique of the writings of Thomas Gold, written by Jean Laherrere. It is a scientific dialogue and contains many technical terms and references which may be nearly unfathomable to the layperson. However, it is a very important discussion because it lays bare many of the errors in Gold's arguments. Unfortunately, Thomas Gold is no longer with us to respond to these criticisms. However, this critique has been floating around in one form or another for a few years now, and it is not unreasonable to assume that Thomas Gold was aware of it.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml">Critique of Thomas Gold</a><br /> <br /> No Free Lunch, Part 2 of 3<br /> If abiotic oil exists, where is it?<br /> by<br /> Dale Allen Pfeiffer<br /> <br /> Introduction<br /> Here we will survey some of the geological sites mentioned most often in support of abiotic oil. We will see if there are other, biotic, explanations for the phenomenon found at these sites. Let us remember, that in order to prove the hypothesis of abiotic oil, it is not enough simply to point at sites and say "Here we are producing oil from bedrock" or "Here the reserve is refilling mysteriously." When proving a scientific hypothesis, you must be very careful to disprove any alternative explanations. This is the onus of the abiogenic oil hypothesis.<br /> <br /> Continued at:<br /> <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml">If abiotic oil exists, where is it?</a><br /> <br /> No Free Lunch, Part 3 of 3: Proof<br /> by<br /> Ugo Bardi & Dale Allen Pfeiffer<br /> <br /> January 28, 2005, PST 0800 (FTW) -- Guess what? The Earth does produce abiotic methane. It can be found in minute quantities along the world's mid-ocean ridges, venting from some volcanoes, and in some mine shafts. The amount of methane generated in these situations is minor, especially when compared to commercial natural gas reserves. As stated in part 2 of this series (and elsewhere), there is more methane produced annually from cow farts than from abiotic sources. No scientist has ever denied the existence of abiotic methane. We have said that there is no evidence that it is produced in useful quantities, and we have stated that abiotic generation of simple hydrocarbons such as methane does not indicate abiotic production of the complex hydrocarbons we refer to as crude oil.<br /> <br /> A group of scientists from the University of Toronto has analyzed abiotic methane taken from a mineshaft in the Canadian Shield. The team, led by geologist Barbara Sherwood Lollar, took methane samples from a deep borehole in the Kidd Creek mine, located in Ontario, Canada. The mine extracts lead, silver, zinc and cadmium. The samples were taken from a depth of 6,800 to 6,900 ft. The Kidd Creek gases were a mixture of methane, ethane, H2 and N2, along with minor amounts of helium, propane and butane.1<br /> <br /> The samples underwent isotopic analysis, quantifying the isotopes of carbon and hydrogen present in the gas.2 The isotopic ratios of a substance (particularly the ratio of carbon and hydrogen isotopes) provide us with a profile of the substance, a sort of isotopic fingerprint which indicates how the substance was generated. Most naturally occurring carbon is isotope C-12, with a small percentage of C-13 (1.11%) and a trace of radioactive isotope C-14. Organic matter, however, has a lower ratio of C-13 because photosynthesis preferentially concentrates C-12. Hydrocarbon reserves reflect their organic origin in their C-12/C-13 ratio.<br /> <br /> Isotopic analysis of the Kidd Creek samples did not match that of organically derived hydrocarbon reserves. The ratio of carbon isotopes instead pointed to an abiotic origin. Studying the isotopic ratio of carbon in these samples-particularly comparing the ratios found in single carbon alkanes3, double carbon, triple carbon and quadruple carbon alkanes-instead suggested an abiotic origin. And when the isotopic ratios of hydrogen were also taken into account, the analysis not only indicated an abiotic origin, it also suggested how the simple hydrocarbons were generated.<br /> <br /> Dr. Lollar and her associates found that the "isotopic trends for the series of C1-C4 alkanes indicates that hydrocarbon formation occurred by way of polymerization of methane precursors."4 They theorized an origin in rock-water interactions. The gases were closely linked to saline groundwaters and brines having 10 times the saline content of ocean water.<br /> <br /> The carbon and hydrogen isotopic profiles of these samples finally gave us the fingerprint for abiotic hydrocarbons. As Dr. Lollar observed, "The key point is that abiogenic hydrocarbons have been talked about for a long time, but until now we didn't have a very good constraint on what they looked like."5 Now we had the isotopic fingerprint for abiotic hydrocarbons. The next logical step was to compare these isotopic ratios to those of commercial gas reserves.<br /> <br /> Dr. Lollar and associates made this comparison in their study. "Based on the isotopic characteristics of abiogenic gases identified in this study, the ubiquitous positive correlation of d13C and d2H values for C1-C4 hydrocarbons in economic reservoirs worldwide is not consistent with any significant contribution from abiogenic gas."6<br /> <br /> Stated again for emphasis, the study found no significant presence of abiotic hydrocarbons in commercial natural gas reserves. We cannot hope for depleted natural gas reserves to be replaced by abiotic hydrocarbons generated within the Earth. While the abiotic generation of simple hydrocarbons within the Earth has been proven, the production is very minor-especially in comparison with commercial natural gas reserves and the world demand for natural gas. There is no free lunch.<br /> <br /> Continued at:<br /> <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012805_no_free_pt3.shtml">No Free Lunch, Part 3 of 3</a><br /> <br /> <br /> <br />