Peak Oil - True or False

[Chuck]

...but Daniel Yergin's Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) disagrees. Its analysis finds that "the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels - three times as large as the (claimed) 1.2 trillion barrels by (peak oil) proponents."

Stephen Lendman - Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel - March 6, 2008

The arguments are so one-sided, it's practically a given that "peak oil" is real and threatening. Or is it? This article examines both sides. It lets readers decide and deals only with supply issues, not crucial environmental ones and the need to develop alternative energy sources. First some background.


The name most associated with "peak oil" is M. King Hubbert. He became the world's best known geologist when he worked for Houston-based Shell Oil Company from 1943 to 1964. His theory goes something like this. Oil is a finite resource. Peak oil, or Hubbert's peak, is the point at which maximum world production is reached, after which its rate terminally declines...[Read More]

[pumaman]

The theory rests on the abiotic origin of oil. It's mirror opposite orthodox geology, and, if right, here's what it means - that available oil is only limited by deep earth organic hydrocarbon constituents at the time of the planet's formation, and technological advances will eventually tap them in ultra-deep reservoirs and from old fields believed to be barren.

The theory defies conventional science, but it's paying off. It let Soviet Russia develop huge oil and gas fields in regions previously thought unsuitable.

Wow. So everything we know may be wrong. I just wonder how it is possible that we don't know for certain whether oil is of biological origin or not. Or be able to prove that some is and some isn't....

[toastblows]

They should really just call it peak light sweet crude oil...thats what we care about.

If you look at the charts, we plateau'd in 2004 worldwide. Opec holds the secret to world wide peak...is it happening or not? I dont blame them either. Selling oil at $100/barrel buys a lot more gold toilets than $30/barrel

[JusBringIt]

we've reached peak oil, we're not producing as much as we're using (plateau). fossil fuels take a while to form, they will form again, however, it does take a while. unless some natural chemical action gives it a boost (GW). we better find our other sources and make use of them.

[Robert Lastick]

GOOD FIND DELTA FLYER!!!!!!!!!

The article points to successes achieved by the Soviets using the abiotic origin theory.

"The theory defies conventional science, but it's paying off. It let Soviet Russia develop huge oil and gas fields in regions previously thought unsuitable. In the 1990s, it was also successfully used in the Dnieper-Donets Basin between Russia and Ukraine in areas considered barren. Sixty-one wells were drilled of which 37 (60%) proved out. Engdahl compares this to US wildcat drilling that produces 90% dry holes".

The article then goes on to say that if this new theory is correct, and it seems to be so, then the Russians hold,
"a strategic trump card of staggering geopolitical import. It also explains why Washington surrounds the country with military bases and targets it with anti-ballistic missiles and radar for offense, not defense".

The article you have found here, Delta Flyer, has clarified my oil eyesight, that had previously been murky and clouded. It explains incongruities in my personal theory.

I did not know anything about Nikolai Kudryavtsev's deep abiotic oil origins theory. Now that I do, the puzzle becomes clearer, for the abiotic successes achieved in Russia;

1. Tends to explain in my mind the seemingly irrational Auto/Oil cartel position they have maintained all these years, and still pushed to the max, that the manufacturing of energy inefficient vehicles and the conspicuous consumption of oil is really OK.

2. Tends to explain economic advantages that accrue from allowing the world to continue to believe that limited oil supply, or "peak oil" is a ploy or "convenient mistake" to keep prices high.

3. Tends to explain what I before saw as irrational political behavior. Washington's desire to "surround the country with military bases and target it with anti-ballistic missiles and radar for offense, not defense" is only one, mentioned in the article. I am now beginning to see other actions that have been taken by our country that this new theory could explain.

This new theory, however, in no way minimizes our country's desperate need to reduce its oil dependence. Regardless of whether or not Kudryavtsev was right, our addiction is destroying our economy and our standard of living. Our dollars worth is crumbling. Our dealers are buying our country out from under us.

I voted that "peak Oil" will happen before 2030 (above). I now change that vote to a definite "unsure".

Thanks for the eye opener, Delta Flyer!

[swoon]

If we do hit peak oil, would the US and Canada become the new OPEC with the large reserves of coal and tar sands which can be converted? At today's prices, I would suspect these sources are starting to become very attractive.

Just based on the economics of oil, I would guess that the low oil prices in the '80's and '90's really drove down exploration investment and now, it has probably been ramping up like mad. The easiest places to drill have been found, but the economics are now such that deeper sea ventures may now be worthwhile. It will take a number of years for the exploration investment to get new sources up and running which could certainly make it appear that we've hit peak until new supply comes online. Of course, this is just pure guessing. I really have no idea if we have hit peak and I'm not sure we will know for some time.

[toastblows]

I think abiotic oil is possible, but that the majority of light sweet that we use has been proven to have carbon markers....making it not from a subteranian source rather from decay of something that was alive once. The abiotic theory is discussed in great detail if you google Eugene Island 330... a well that peaked, almost went dry then started another peak of production with no intervention. I have my theories as to why, but they believe its the best example of abiotic oil to date.

The tar sands and unconventional oil is a nice warm fuzzy to make sure we all know oil will last forever. The truth is we could just conserve oil easier than producing oil from tar sands etc. What a waste of resources just to get a slight gain in more oil. Reminds me of that other scam, E85. We can use 1 gallon of fuel to make 1.3 gallons. Or...we can just conserve that 1 gallon of fuel by efficiency gains or non use and not burn up the last of a great resource like oil for an inferior product like E85.

[Shiba3420]

Well if we haven't actually reached peak, it doesn't really matter because the effect is the same. Demand is going up a rate faster than production can/will keep up with. Prices zoom skywards. At this point it doesn't matter how much oil can still be pulled because it isn't getting out of the ground fast enough to keep up with society so society suffers.

[psyshack]

I think mother earth is always producing the stuff. I honestly think we have no idea how or why its made.

[desdemona]

If we get to looking in shale, going to really deep wells, etc. that's peak. I don't think we have reached it, but that doesn't mean we won't get there. Yeah nature makes more but it is in geologic and not our time. Wait a few million years and we'll have some.
Hopefully the planet will be off the stuff by then.

--des