Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[greenman]

Crumbs! That article by Leggett is scary.
Kind of puts in perspective the playground squabbling that infects the Brit left. (See for example most of threads on UK politics, including one I started on RMT conference) The wolf is creeping towards the door, and if we haven't got our act together soon,(like in the next year or two, if Leggett is to be believed!) we are going to be sitting ducks. The fash are certainly listening - Leggett says five of their leadership attended some talk on peak oil - and getting ready to take advantage.
It is getting time to get serious. Not only the survival of our political traditions- socialist, democratic, libertarian - may depend on how we act in the coming couple of years, but possibly our lives.

 

[clv101]

Crumbs! That article by Leggett is scary.
Kind of puts in perspective the playground squabbling that infects the Brit left. (See for example most of threads on UK politics, including one I started on RMT conference) The wolf is creeping towards the door, and if we haven't got our act together soon,(like in the next year or two, if Leggett is to be believed!) we are going to be sitting ducks. The fash are certainly listening - Leggett says five of their leadership attended some talk on peak oil - and getting ready to take advantage.
It is getting time to get serious. Not only the survival of our political traditions- socialist, democratic, libertarian - may depend on how we act in the coming couple of years, but possibly our lives.

Leggett's article in the Independent is fantastic - 8 full pages with photos and graphs. Some serious coverage... but what's the top news story on TV today? A whale. People need to wake up!

I was at the meeting with Leggett where the BNP turned up. They are hoping to capitalise on the ensuing economic collapse and public resentment of the current political parties for not doing anything.

 

[TAE]

It is getting time to get serious. Not only the survival of our political traditions- socialist, democratic, libertarian - may depend on how we act in the coming couple of years, but possibly our lives.

And throwing India and China into the mix - things get really interesting ... it's time to move from competition to cooperation.

 

[bigfish]

Fossilised myths: new thinking on 'dirty' coal and dwindling oil

A new book claims that there is enough oil, coal and gas to last the earth at least 500 years - and it doesn't have to be polluting. Environment editor Juliette Jowit reports

Juliette Jowit and Felix Lowe
Sunday February 5, 2006
The Observer

As Finland embraces a nuclear future another unlikely conversion has taken place in the energy business - Mark Jaccard likes coal.

For decades Jaccard was a leading expert in sustainable energy, darling of the environmental movement and bane of Big Oil.

But now he proclaims that the world can continue to rely on fossil fuels. And his reasoning, while consistent with his beliefs, comes as a huge surprise. The professor says he has not stopped caring about the environment; it's just that he now believes fossil fuels offer the most sustainable future for the planet.

Visiting London from Canada to promote his new book, Jaccard explains that after 20 years in the field, he decided to start again, con- sidering all the evidence about the most sustainable way of powering a growing and consumerist world.

'The more I explored it, the more I got caught up on two big myths: one is that we're running out of oil; number two is that fossil fuels are dirty,' he says. 'I believed that for 20 years.'

No longer. Jaccard's book, Sustainable Fossil Fuels, argues that coal, oil and gas are plentiful, and do not need to be polluting. It's not that Jaccard prefers fossil fuels per se; but he believes accepting and cleaning up oil, gas and coal power is a better way than trying, and failing, to quickly shift the energy-hungry world to still-doubtful and expensive renewable technologies such as wind, tidal, solar or nuclear power.
...
The first 'myth' Jaccard claims to puncture is that fossil fuels are running out. Most quoted information relates to easily extracted 'conventional' oil, gas and coal. Adding more controversial figures (though from the respectable UN and World Energy Council) for 'unconventional' supplies, that have traditionally been too difficult and/or expensive to use, Jaccard favours the view that there are enough hydrocarbons for humans to use for up to 2,000 years - or, more importantly, at least 500.

More: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1702261,00.html

 

[greenman]

Nothing really surprising in this, other than the estimated oil reserves. Most people in Britain know there was still loads of coal left, even in long industrialised Britain's coalfields, when the Tories shut the pits.
and last I heard, even Friends of the Earth were looking sympathetically at carbon capture and storage as preferable to nuclear. I have an environmentalist book from the seventies that talks about the "fossil fuel bridge" to renewable energy avoiding the nuclear option.
There are still a lot of questions about clean coal tech and carbon capture and storage, but not as many as there are about what we do with nuclear waste!

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Jaccard is just another economist who thinks EROEI is a character from 'Winnie the Pooh'.

 

[bigfish]

Jaccard is just another economist who thinks EROEI is a character from 'Winnie the Pooh'.

But the Observer tells us that: Jaccard was a leading expert in sustainable energy, darling of the environmental movement and bane of Big Oil.

I suppose he must have fallen out of favour with the radical eco innumerates soon after it was discovered he can count.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I did some searching on Jaccard, but can't find anything that would lead me to have a strong view one way or another on the opinions he's expressing in the article above.

Take Canadian tar sands for example, current extraction processes use lots of oil to power machinery for what amounts to strip mining and then large amounts of natural gas to make the steam used in the extraction process. Let's leave to one side for a moment the horrific environmental mess caused by the strip mining, huge tailings lakes, heavy industrial processsing and energy generation plant required and just focus on the energy inputs.

What's he suggesting they use instead? My guess, based on his other statements there, is that he's proposing to use coal for primary energy and then maybe use it to make hydrogen by the process mentioned below first.

Fine, so what proven approach to dealing with the consequent greenhouse gas and other emissions is he proposing? Again we can only guess from that article and anything else I've been able to find, but I would be slightly surprised if it wasn't something like the standard economists answer along the lines of 'market forces will bring any required technology into existence at the right price point' because I'm unaware of any proven technology that could do what would be required at the present time.

I'd also quite like to find a more precise reference to the South African process he mentions in the article though because he seems to be claiming that's proven and working right now although he could just be saying that they know how to make hydrogen & CO2 in a pre-combustion capture process, rather than that they've solved the problem of global-scale CO2 sequestration. (Here's some research from the Tyndall Centre on sequestration technologies. Many uncertainties are currently present.)

Again though, based on what I was able to find with brief google, this is all speculation. Maybe someone wants to buy his book and tell us what it says about questions of this kind?

 

[zceb90]

More: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1702261,00.html

I just can't see how a case can be made that 'oil will be sufficient for 500 years' (let alone 2000 years). Allowing for a modest growth factor of 1% pa (recently demand growth has been running at 3.5% pa) quick caluculations indicate a 128 fold increase in consumption in 490 years. In the event that 3.5% demand growth were maintained (a totally impossible scenario) the increase over 500 years would be 2^25!

The point that I and others who support the 'peak oil' theory are making is not that the world is going to run out of oil anytime soon or even in our grandchildren's lifetimes but that output will shortly peak and supply of cheap oil will never again be able to meet demand. Whether one believes that peak oil is / will become a reality or not it is becoming increasingly obvious that exponential demand growth cannot continue for much longer. Industrial societies will thus be forced to value energy much more carefully and will have to make do with significantly less energy per capita. New technology can help both in extracting more oil and using it more efficiently but it cannot alter the actual size of deposits as that was pre-determined by geology.

The article also referenced output from oil sands in Western Canada rising from current 1m bopd to 4m bopd by 2025; in other words an increase of 3m bopd in 19 years. Various petroleum analysts are pointing to annual decline rates in mature oil provinces including (round figures in bopd pa): UK 200k, US 300k, Indonesia 60k....etc. In total around 18 major oil producing nations are now in permanent decline and it's estimated that ongoing depletion is removing some 5 - 8% pa of oil output in those regions. Of course some of that decline is offset by drilling more wells....but, as N America is now finding with regard to gas wells, that's like a treadmill in that one has to drill ever more wells (and deeper, remoter wells) simply to 'stay still'. Factor in growth of (say) 2.5% on world consumption of 84m bopd and the additional output from the oil sands over 19 years covers less than 18 months' demand growth....yet alone compensate for declines in mature oilfields.

There was an 8 page supplement in the Independent last month featuring an article by Jeremy Leggett which was one of the 'best reads' I've seen on this subject for some time. One can agree / disagree with his conclusions but he's pointing to a trend; remember that even a tripling of oil reserves only postpones peaking for 1 generation (due to the power of exponential growth). Article can be viewed here:What they don't want you to know about the Coming Oil Crisis (article is same as referenced in Sparticus' post dated 21-01-06 but the 'Independent' has archived the article whereas this link still points to readily viewable copy).

Chris

 

[elbows]

Well since I last posted here Id say theres been one heck of a lot more bad oil & gas news, along with a increasing trend of the media taking these issues seriously, and even established politicians etc making noises which match peak theory.

Since the news about Kuwaits reserve issues, Ive seen 2 other stories of similar significance:

"Mexico's oil output may decline sharply
David Luhnow, Wall Street Journal
Pemex Study Points to Possible Drop At Major Field, Which Would Strain Global Supply
-------------
MEXICO CITY - Mexico's huge state-owned oil company may be facing a steep decline in output that would further tighten global oil supply and add to global woes over high oil prices.

The potential decline faced by Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, also could undermine U.S. efforts to reduce dependence on Middle East oil, and complicate Mexican politics and financial stability.

An internal study reviewed by The Wall Street Journal shows water and gas are encroaching more quickly than expected in Cantarell, Mexico's biggest oil field, and might cause output to drop precipitously over the next few years. Currently, Cantarell produces two million barrels of oil a day, or six of every 10 barrels produced by Mexico. It is the world's second-biggest-producing field after Saudi Arabia's Ghawar.

The worst two scenarios suggest a drastic decline in output to 875,000 barrels a day by the end of 2007 and to just 520,000 a day by the end of 2008. If such projections turn out to be correct, Mexico's overall oil exports would decline by about one million barrels a day -- equal to about 63% of its daily crude exports to the U.S. -- from its current 1.8 million."

The other one was Spanish Company Repsol YPF downgrading its reserves by 25%, mostly gas apparently.

 

[clv101]

Mexic seems to be going off the cliff, here some news from the end of last year:

Word from Mexico
Mexico’s Pemex Press Release

 

[zceb90]

I was at the meeting with Leggett where the BNP turned up. They are hoping to capitalise on the ensuing economic collapse and public resentment of the current political parties for not doing anything.

Ditto....in fact we were in a group of around 15 at a restaurant near the conference venue on the Sunday evening before the conference.

Chris

 

[zceb90]

Kuwait Reserves

I've written up the news that Kuwait's oil reserves could be much lower than officially stated. This has huge ramifications for the whole of OPEC and therefore the world. I can't beleive the number one news story today is the whale in London.

Kuwaiti Reserve Reverse

There's more analysis here: Oil Reserves and Peak Oil . The author, Byron W King, explains how the discrepency in Kuwait oil reserves amounts to no less than 5% of estimated remaining global reserves of conventional oil. Even more worrying is that a write-down of Kuwait oil reserves (if officially confirmed) is likely to be a far from one-off event. As CLV101's 'Vital Trivia' article explains Kuwait was one of several OPEC producers who greatly increased their stated reserves in the 1980's. A number of leading petroleum geologists hold the view that these huge increases were for political / economic reasons rather than based on actual exploration drilling results and that the 1970's and early 1980's studies by western experts i.e. pre-nationalisation were likely to be more or less correct.

If this is indeed the case then OPEC 'real' reserves may be 300 Gbbls less than stated in which case peaking is right here at hand (or has already occurred). Kenneth Deffeyes (geologist and former colleague of Hubbert) is one of the geologists who believe the global peak occurred last year: Kenneth Deffeyes - Beyond Oil: the View from Hubbert's Peak

Chris

 

[zceb90]

Here is an extract from Jeremy Leggett's article in the Independent, referenced in past few posts:

<<So, how much new investment is needed to fix the shortfall? Over the next 10 years, assuming oil demand increases as commonly projected, fully $2.4trillion will need to be spent, according to Goldman Sachs. This is nearly triple the level of capital investment by the oil industry in the 1990s. And if it isn't spent? "If the core infrastructure does not improve, energy crises are likely to become progressively more frequent, more severe and more disruptive of economic activity," the investment bank concludes>>

So how is 'Big Oil' going to handle all this increased investment? A good insight into current thinking is found here: Biggest proposed cash return to shareholders in British Corporate History

My interpretation of BP's intention is that, even at $60/bbl they intend to spend fully $65bn over 3 years in stock buybacks and dividends as opposed to ramping up their exploration activity or building new refineries, pipelines etc. The amount of money to be made were another Forties to be discovered (let alone another Ghawar or Burgan) at these prices would be quite staggering.....and yet they decide to return the surplus cash to shareholders instead. One can only conclude that they don't consider there is much out there to invest in, at least (to be fair) no realistically large prospects in regions where they can obtain necessary permits.

The question that we need answers to is 'if BP with their vast resources, oilfield expertise and huge cashflow are not going to significantly ramp up their oil exploration / infrastructure investment who will?' My feeling is that 'no one will' and therefore capacity contraints in the oil industry globally can only increase....and for investment as well as geological reasons.

Chris

 

[bigfish]

I did some searching on Jaccard, but can't find anything that would lead me to have a strong view one way or another on the opinions he's expressing in the article above...

That's very thorough of you Bernie. So tell me, how come you didn't carry out the same kind of thorough checks on Colin Campbell when you started this thread citing his Malthusian nostrums on "Peak Oil"? Perhaps if you had, you would have quickly discovered that Mr Campbell has a very troubling history, i.e., his long association with an extremely secretive corporate entity know as Petroconsultants. Petroconsultants, it turns out, was owned by two elite families during Cambell's 50 year tenure there -the American Rockefeller family and the Thyssen-Bornemisza family, who are German. Both these clans have very troubling histories of their own linking them in fact to German fascism, which they both financed and supplied (or in other words controlled). Lots of perfectly ordinary, everyday people have worked for corporate entities, research institutions and foundations owned and controlled or philanthropically supported by these two clans, without ever being or becoming fascists themselves, I'm sure. And of course, one would like to think the same is true of Campbell also. Sadly, though, this doesn't appear to be the case, especially as now Campbell, in his capacity as head honcho of ASPO and editor of its newsletter, has taken to issuing fascistic tracts. See, for example, Campbell's ASPO newsletter 558....

Recent articles in the ASPO Newsletter have agreed that the explosion of world population from about 0.6 billion in 1750 to 6.4 billion today was initiated and sustained by the shift from renewable energy to fossil fuel (sic) energy in the Industrial Revolution. There is agreement that the progressive exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves will reverse the process, though there is uncertainty as to what a sustainable global population would be.

... a global population reduction of some 6 billion people is likely to take place during the 21st Century.

... probably before 2010 ... uncontrollable inflation and recession will spread round the world ...

In Third World nations ... a Darwinian struggle for shrinking resources of all kinds will be in full swing ... the imperative to survive will be driving strong groups to take what they want from weak ones. The concept of human rights will be irrelevant ...

It may well be that, in the West, the same argument will affect the thinking of militarily powerful nations ... Instantaneous nuclear elimination of population centres might even be considered merciful, compared to starvation and massacres prolonged over decades. Eventually, probably before 2150, world population will have fallen to a level that renewable energy, mainly biomass, can sustain ...

Probably the greatest obstacle to the scenario with the best chance of success (in my opinion) is the Western world’s unintelligent devotion to political correctness, human rights and the sanctity of human life. In the Darwinian world that preceded and will follow the fossil fuel era, these concepts were and will be meaningless. Survival in a Darwinian resource-poor world depends on the ruthless elimination of rivals, not the acquisition of moral kudos by cherishing them when they are weak.

So the population reduction scenario with the best chance of success has to be Darwinian in all its aspects, with none of the sentimentality that shrouded the second half of the 20th Century in a dense fog of political correctness ...

To those sentimentalists who ... are outraged at the proposed replacement of human rights by cold logic, I would say “You have had your day, in which your woolly thinking has messed up not just the Western world but the whole planet, which could, if Homo sapiens had been truly intelligent, have supported a small population enjoying a wonderful quality of life almost for ever. You have thrown away that opportunity.”

... The scenario is: Immigration is banned. Unauthorised arrives are treated as criminals. Every woman is entitled to raise one healthy child. No religious or cultural exceptions can be made, but entitlements can be traded. Abortion or infanticide is compulsory if the fetus or baby proves to be handicapped (Darwinian selection weeds out the unfit). When, through old age, accident or disease, an individual becomes more of a burden than a benefit to society, his or her life is humanely ended. Voluntary euthanasia is legal and made easy. Imprisonment is rare, replaced by corporal punishment for lesser offences and painless capital punishment for greater.

... The punishment regime would improve social cohesiveness by weeding out criminal elements.

... military forces should be maintained strong and alert ... Collaboration with other nations practising the same population reduction scenario would be of great mutual advantage.

With openly fascistic tracts like this being published by Campbell in his ASPO newsletter, there's really little wonder the BNP have rapidly adapted themselves to the "Peak Oil" myth and beaten a path to ASPO's door, don't you think? Why even old Adolph would have been chuffed to bits if he'd written this one for ASPO himself!

One only has to imagine the ensuing furore had you discovered that Jaccard has similar corporate ties to those of Campbell. So can I ask Bernie, with so much readily available dirt on Campbell, how come you didn't find it? And now that you have been made aware of Campbell's corporate connections and fascistic views, do you still think he is someone whose word and work can be trusted?

 

[Crispy]

First off, I am convinced by many more people than Campbell. Second, I am convinced by the science and the research, not the man. Third, the man does not even matter. Verner von Braun was a Nazi who used slave labour to build V2 rockets that killed civilians, but his designs put man on the moon. I wouldn't trust him to head up my HR department, but I think he knows one or two things about rockets.

See, for example, Campbell's ASPO newsletter 558.

This one? Written by William Stanton, not Campbell. Campbells intro says:

Let us hope that it does not come to this, but the options explained do have a certain chilling logic.

- As all fascist plans do.

At any rate, the connection between Campbell and fascism is so slight that it does not, in likelyhood, exist. If you want to convince us, convince us on the science, as that's where the issue lies.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Bigfish - we've dealt with this bullshit already. See post #764 - #773.

You seem to have answered your own original question - "how come those bloodhounds down at the jolly old Gonad forgot to mention that Campbell is/was in the pay of the (Nazi backing) Thyssen (and Rockefeller) family's very secretive PetroConsultants of Geneva?" - because, as you have demonstrated, it would be a misleading statement to make.

 

[bigfish]

Bigfish - we've dealt with this bullshit already. See post #764 - #773.

Who's "we," like? Is it a euphemism for "you"?

By the way, I see that you and AP (in his latest urban incarnation) have stopped furnishing the forum with the latest ASPO newsletters, for some reason or other. Why is that?

Meanwhile, over on another thread, on climate change, we find Bernie hard at work "comprehensively eviscerating" anyone contradicting the doom laden idea that we are all going to get boiled to death 'The Day After Tomorrow':

There is substantial evidence that a political campaign is being mounted, using the nastiest and most dishonest tricks of both the PR industry and the funamentalist cultists to deny the weight of scientific evidence for human-induced climate change. For example.
...
These people are oil industry funded liars and corrupt politicians. They can't get their stuff published in legitimate journals, so they have to create illusions and sneak around the peer-review process in order to get published. Soon and Ballonist, Mc & Mc and Lomberg have all been comprehensively eviscerated each time real scientists in real peer-reviewed journals have got hold of their material. Nonetheless, the PR industry is effective and very well funded. It's not like Exxon lacks the cash to have fake science promoted in the media, and it's not like they lack the motivation given the nature of the necessary mitigations for climate change and their effect on oil companies.

And of course, the legions of the brainwashed repeat this stuff when they find it at their friendly right-wing propaganda repository. And of course, their critical faculties are already damaged by state-worship cults and other toxic forms of fundamentalism, so they just robotically spew out the disinformation.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2596336&postcount=88

So, if "Soon and Ballonist, Mc & Mc and Lomberg have all been comprehensively eviscerated each time real scientists in real peer-reviewed journals have got hold of their material, then why can't we say the same for Adolph Campbell? After all, the "Peak Oil" nostrums of this charlatan have also been "comprehensively eviscerated" by leading energy experts such as Michael C Lynch of MIT and by Peter Odell of the L.S.E., for example.

See: The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources: Debunking the Hubbert Model (and Hubbert Modelers). Michael C. Lynch, M.I.T

See: CRYING WOLF: Warnings about oil supply. Michael C. Lynch, M.I.T., March 1998.

See: The Global Energy Market in the Long Term: The Continuing Dominance of Affordable Non-Renewable Resources. Peter Odell 2000.

Campbell has also been "comprehensively eviscerated" by geophysicist J F Kenney, R.A.S.

See: Considerations About Recent Predictions Of Impending Shortages Of Petroleum Evaluated From The Perspective Of Modern Petroleum Science. J. F. Kenney Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; Gas Resources Corporation, Houston.

 

[clv101]

Can we just cut to the chase... and stop all the personal attacks, attack the message not the person. Bigfish, what is your opinion on peak oil? What do you mean when you described it as: "Peak Oil" myth?

What do you think the oil extraction curve is going to look like to the end of the century and why?

 

[Crispy]

This one:

http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm

seems like a pretty good rebuttal to me.

However, this one:

http://www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm

is from the bonkers abiotic oil camp. quite apart from its bonkers nature, this theory does not allow for oil to be created as fast as we are using it, so the peak oil scenario will rear its head anyway.

 

[elbows]

Judging by what we've seen in the last few years, just give it a bit longer and the only people left who dont buy the peak oil theory will be a bonkers minority. This things so mainstream now that Ive nearly stopped talking about it. The rhetoric of politicians and big business is now only 1 level away from being honest about peak oil.

I see UK depletion continues to happen faster than the government figures allow for, ah well.

Frankly its hard to see how people can still call it a myth without their brains exploding. If oile xtraction can peak in one country, it will happen globally. And that abiotic stuff might have been amusing Soviet Cold War propaganda for all I know.

On the otherhand if when we arrive at the point of highly noticable shortages, if loads of people are still buying the 'someones hiding the oil from us' stuff, maybe governments and coroprations are going to have some angry mobs to deal with. It would be ironic, all these decades they've sucessfully neutered the people who wanted to destroy them because of actual harm they caused, and in the end they get destroyed for something that they havent done lol.

 

[bigfish]

First off, I am convinced by many more people than Campbell. Second, I am convinced by the science and the research, not the man.

Yes, I agree with your second point, admirably supported by your Verner von Braun example in point 3.

This one? Written by William Stanton, not Campbell....

On a point of fact, I never claimed Campbell authored that filthy tract. I said that he published it in his capacity as head honcho of ASPO and editor in chief of its newsletter. In other words, the buck stops with him, no?

At any rate, the connection between Campbell and fascism is so slight that it does not, in likelyhood, exist.

But in his capacity as head honcho of ASPO and editor in chief of its newsletter, he is openly publishing fascistic tracts!

If you want to convince us, convince us on the science, as that's where the issue lies.

But I've already presented plenty of science. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for a single example of a laboratory controlled experiment, wherein a given amount of organic material ( say 2lb of squashed fish and leaves, for example) becomes chemically transformed, in a controlled thermodynamic environment replicating the fossil domain, into the hydrocarbon series constituting petroleum. Here's an example of what I mean, only this one demonstrates the same for inorganic material.

Rocks into Gas - Harvard Magazine

Returning to your earlier point, about the science being important and not the man, perhaps you could offer an opinion on the science elaborated in this piece: How exactly do 'fossils' make 'fuel'?

In sharp contrast, methane has been synthetically produced in a rigorous laboratory setting with a full specification of the chemical formulae involved in the combination of iron oxide, calcium carbonate, and water to produce methane at pressure conditions of the Earth's upper mantle. The scientists conducting the experiment concluded:

The observation of methane formation at mantle pressures is significant because it demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed.

Scientists have also recently analyzed spectrographic data validating the formation of methane on Mars by fluid-rock interaction in the crust, with no evidence of biologic or organic processes involved.

Scientists proposing the abiotic theory of oil have argued that the "Fossil-Fuel" theory fundamentally violates the second law of thermodynamics, a principle which specifies that energy disperses when permitted, such that the energy flow never reverses. For example, consider that when you release the neck of a balloon the air escapes; the air never naturally rushes to concentrate into a balloon without being forced to do so. Thomas Gold stated the principle on page 46 of his 1998 book:

It would be surprising indeed if the Earth had obtained its hydrocarbons only from a source that biology had taken from another carbon-bearing gas – carbon dioxide – which would have been collected from the atmosphere by photo-synthesizing organisms for manufacture into carbohydrates and then somehow reworked by geology into hydrocarbons.

In other words, the "fossil fuel" from ancient flora or protoplasm would demand that somehow the air went back into the balloon, a reverse flow-of-energy direction contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, dead dinosaurs and ancient forests follow naturally the law of entropy, "dust into dust," not the re-energized "fossil fuel" notion of "dust into oil." We still lack the laboratory demonstrations authors such as Richard Heinberg claimed we would find. Has anyone ever taken a flask of downed flora or dead protoplasm and produced a hydrocarbon fuel out of the mixture, or is this a process for alchemy?

 

[Crispy]

Yes, I agree with your second point, admirably supported by your Verner von Braun example in point 3.

On a point of fact, I never claimed Campbell authored that filthy tract. I said that he published it in his capacity as head honcho of ASPO and editor in chief of its newsletter. In other words, the buck stops with him, no?

I suppose so. I think it's still worthwhile publishing such things, if only so that they can be confidently argued against (as the last comment on the page I linked to does)

But I've already presented plenty of science. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for a single example of a laboratory controlled experiment, wherein a given amount of organic material ( say 2lb of squashed fish and leaves, for example) becomes chemically transformed, in a controlled thermodynamic environment replicating the fossil domain, into the hydrocarbon series constituting petroleum.

That's disingenuous. Got any time machines so we can hang around for millions of years?

Here's an example of what I mean, only this one demonstrates the same for inorganic material.
Rocks into Gas - Harvard Magazine

I won't deny the results of that experiment. I also won't deny the existence of methane in the mantle - it's a pretty simple molecule that's relatively simple to synthesize and it bubbles up out of the atlantic all the time. However, even if this is a starting point for oil, we certainly are pumping it out far far far faster that it's being replenished, so it's something of a moot point as far as the peak oil argumnet is concerned.

Returning to your earlier point, about the science being important and not the man, perhaps you could offer an opinion on the science elaborated in this piece: How exactly do 'fossils' make 'fuel'?

Well, we'll definately ignore the man in that case Worldnetdaily doesn't rank too high in my all time top ten reputable sources list. My first problem with that article is the author's confusion over kerogen. He complains that because he can't find a chemical formulae for it, it must be suspect. Because the substance in question is a mix of long-chain, complex molecules with wildly differing formulae, it's not surprising he can't find one. He also shows surprise that he can't find a definition in webster's, as if it were the final repository of knowledge. This quote:

It is important to keep in mind that the name kerogen, in opposition with usual chemical nomenclature, does not represent a substance with a given chemical composition. Indeed kerogen is a generic name, in the same sense as lipids or proteins.

is used in a particularly misleading way. We know the precise composition of lipids and proteins. If you seperated out the constituents of kerogen out you could equally give a composition for each part.

The second major problem I have is the thermodynamics argument the author makes. It is a common misunderstanding that the second law 'prevents' any decrease in entropy. Not so. Only a complete net decrease in entropy is forbidden. Local entropy may drop at the expense of vastly raised entropy elsewhere. A common word for this process is 'life'

Finally, I do not have a closed mind. If oil does turn out to be abiotic in origin, I will not dissolve in a puddle of existential self-loathing. However, the evidence for biotic oil, in particular - biomarkers and carbon dating , and the close correlation between this data and rock types - is very convincing to me. So much so, that I require some pretty substantial evidence to the contrary. Nothing you've linked to makes the grade (especially that last one).

 

[bigfish]

Judging by what we've seen in the last few years, just give it a bit longer and the only people left who dont buy the peak oil theory will be a bonkers minority. This things so mainstream now that Ive nearly stopped talking about it...

But Lomonosov's antiquated fossil fuel hypothesis is only "mainstream" here in Western Europe and the United States. In Russia, China and Vietnam, for example, the abyssal theory is firmly established and producing hydrocarbon fuels from below the crystalline basement, where no dinosaur or tree ever roamed or grew.

By the way, it wasn't that long ago I recall when the idea that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed a mortal threat to Western civilization due to its possession of WMD's was "so mainstream". Did you buy into that one too?

 

[Crispy]

But Lomonosov's antiquated fossil fuel hypothesis is only "mainstream" here in Western Europe and the United States. In Russia, China and Vietnam, for example, the abyssal theory is firmly established and producing hydrocarbon fuels from below the crystalline basement, where no dinosaur or tree ever roamed or grew.

It's certainly not mainstream there either.
And plate tectonics can quite easily fold basalt on top of sedimentary rocks.

 

[bigfish]

It's certainly not mainstream there either....

I don't suppose for a moment that you're able to support your assertion with something a little more concrete than your own personal opinion, are you?

The modern Russian-Ukrainian 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. 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. They also determined that the evolution of reduced hydrocarbon molecules requires pressures of magnitudes encountered at depths equal to such of the mantle of the Earth. During the second phase of its development, the modern theory of petroleum was entirely recast from a qualitative argument based upon a synthesis of many qualitative facts into a quantitative argument based upon the analytical arguments of quantum statistical mechanics and thermodynamic stability theory.(Chekaliuk 1967; Boiko 1968; Chekaliuk 1971; Chekaliuk and Kenney 1991; Kenney 1995) With the transformation of the modern theory from a synthetic geology theory arguing by persuasion into an analytical physical theory arguing by compulsion, petroleum geology entered the mainstream of modern science.
http://www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm

So if the abyssal theory "stands as a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences" in the countries of the former Soviet Union, how is it possibly for it not to mainstream in those countries?

Any idea?

 

[Crispy]

So if the abyssal theory "stands as a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences" in the countries of the former Soviet Union, how is it possibly for it not to mainstream in those countries?

Any idea?

Is it really, though? I wouldn't know where to go to find a list of all russian oil scientists and their views on the subject, so it's hard to prove.

I remain to be convinced by the abiotic theory. In terms of depletion and peak oil however, it is not relevant, unless it is being generated at rates comparable to those we are extracting it at. I will be proved wrong of course, when Russia's oil production rises and rises, with lots of new oil from these deep abiotic sources. Let me know when that happens, would you?
In the meantime, I think it's a good idea to at least plan for the worst.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Who's "we," like? Is it a euphemism for "you"?

'We' as in 'me' and 'you'.

I suppose it could be said that it was only 'me' that dealt with your bullshit smears against Campbell, in that when challenged with the logical inconsistancy regarding your claims, you quickly switched the subject, as you just did there.

For those who can't be arsed to scroll back to it, the 'evil Nazis' ( ) that bigfish is so obsessed with bought out Petroconsultants after Campbell left, as he himself admits.

'We' have dealt with Odell and Lynch, too, haven't we? Several times, yes?

Well, you'll have to excuse me, but I have beter things to do with my time than respond to your endless repetitive regurgitations of the output from cornucopian economists. Feel free to shout out if you ever have anything new or substantive to say, tho.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

...also, to save anyone the bother of responding in depth to the 'abiotic' crap, see clv101's post on the subject here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3514727&highlight=abiotic#post3514727

The fact remains that even if the claims regarding 'abiotic' oil were in anyway true, there is nothing to suggest that any resource on the planet is 'replenishing' itself, as amply demonstrated by production curves.

So even if the point had any substantive basis, it would be completely irrelevant with regard to depletion. Damn those lazy pixies!

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Oooh... nearly missed this:

By the way, I see that you and AP (in his latest urban incarnation) have stopped furnishing the forum with the latest ASPO newsletters, for some reason or other. Why is that?

By 'AP' I'll assume that you are refering to 'Adam Porter'? Which poster have you decided is 'his latest urban incarnation', exactly?

ASPO newsletters are all available here: http://www.peakoil.net/

I used to post links to the pdf/doc files before they were readily available online, since you asked.