Conquer Club

Is there really LESS oil than most people think?

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/disp ... 10/am-iea/

PLAYER57832 wrote:Is there really LESS oil than most people think?

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/disp ... 10/am-iea/

No.


There is massive amounts of oil in Israel.


It was foretold in the "2000 year old fictional book", the Bible.


Of course, who says Israel is going to share it with the world?

jay_a2j wrote:It was foretold in the "2000 year old fictional book", the Bible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... rgy-agency

Bit more in that one.


It's interesting, and it would make sense if the state-owned companies of Middle Eastern countries do exaggerate the numbers on their oil reserves.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Is there really LESS oil than most people think?

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/disp ... 10/am-iea/

On the topic of alternative oil theory, the Russians subscribe to a different school of thought than we commonly do in the West.

As opposed to holding to the theory that oil is the result of decayed organic material, they believe that oil is produced as a bi product of the earth's magma core and that oil is a permanently renewing resource. There is apparently some evidence to support this, but we don't often hear about it.

There are a number of interesting articles about this here.

GabonX wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Is there really LESS oil than most people think?

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/disp ... 10/am-iea/

On the topic of alternative oil theory, the Russians subscribe to a different school of thought than we commonly do in the West.

As opposed to holding to the theory that oil is the result of decayed organic material, they believe that oil is produced as a bi product of the earth's magma core and that oil is a permanently renewing resource. There is apparently some evidence to support this, but we don't often hear about it.

There are a number of interesting articles about this here.

Interesting, if you feel free to ignore real science.

No Gabon, there is not real, true credible evidence to that theory. There are a few people who have reasons to perpetuate that idea.

I have heard that some algae can create oil or an oil-like substance, but only in small quantities. Right now, its not a cost-effective process. And, may never be.

Does it even matter?

Two things are certain unless you believe the fairy tale book. Oil is NOT an infinite resource and production has peaked. It's all downhill from here.

Backglass wrote:Does it even matter?

Two things are certain unless you believe the fairy tale book. Oil is NOT an infinite resource and production has peaked. It's all downhill from here.

I believe the question is whether we have or have not yet reached peak oil.

That and, if we have how far down the road are we?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GabonX wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Is there really LESS oil than most people think?

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/disp ... 10/am-iea/

On the topic of alternative oil theory, the Russians subscribe to a different school of thought than we commonly do in the West.

As opposed to holding to the theory that oil is the result of decayed organic material, they believe that oil is produced as a bi product of the earth's magma core and that oil is a permanently renewing resource. There is apparently some evidence to support this, but we don't often hear about it.

There are a number of interesting articles about this here.

Interesting, if you feel free to ignore real science.

No Gabon, there is not real, true credible evidence to that theory. There are a few people who have reasons to perpetuate that idea.

Actually there is real and true credible evidence to support this. I don't claim to know the answer myself, but I find it very interesting that the world's top natural resource exporter subscribes to this line of thought. In addition, I submit that it is probable that if this were true, the debate would be supressed as it would be seen as a threat to the anti global warming movement. Thank you for demonstrating this..

As for the credible evidence:

Supporting Evidence, Briefly

* Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found.
* Wells pumped dry later replenished.
* Volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models.
* In Situ production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle. (PhysicsWeb; Sept. 14, 2004)

Perhaps the most pressing piece of evidence in support of this claim is that their are other bodies in our solar system which have more hydrocarbons and fossil fuels than our found on earth, despite the apparent lack of life which we commonly hold created our fossil fuels. For example one of Saturn's moons has "hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth."

Once again, I'm not an expert on this. With that said, I find it very interesting that the world's top oil and natural gas exporter subscribes to this line of thought.

I find it even more interesting that this information is seemingly suppressed..

Neoteny? Anyone else?

I am getting a headache right now ....

(and Gabon, disagreeing does not mean "suppressing". This is not widely circulated because it has so many, many holes it is just not even worth real consideration. You don't see too many papers arguing against the world being flat right now, either. That doesn't mean the flat earth theories are being "suppressed" it means they don't have enough credibility to warrent any real discussion.)

I think the evidence provided (which has been ignored) is a bit stronger than what the flat earthers present.

The point is that a major world power seemingly subscribes to this line of thought, there is at least SOME evidence to support it, and there are logical reasons why people in Western Governments would want to suppress this knowledge if it were true.

Frankly I'm shocked by your lack of cultural sensitivity towards Russia

GabonX wrote:I think the evidence provided (which has been ignored) is a bit stronger than what the flat earthers present.

The point is that a major world power seemingly subscribes to this line of thought, there is at least SOME evidence to support it, and there are logical reasons why people in Western Governments would want to suppress this knowledge if it were true.

Frankly I'm shocked by your lack of cultural sensitivity towards Russia

Russia, being an oil-exporting country, would benefit greatly if they could declare oil a "renewable resource". I'd heard about the theory before, the Russian government pushing it does not lend it any more credibility imo. I won't comment on the science behind it because I can't.

Yes, that would make sense.

Once again, I don't know enough about the science to really take a stand on the issue. My purpose here is just to inform people who may not know, that their is another school of thought which exists.

I'm prepared to be berated for this as usual..

GabonX wrote:Yes, that would make sense.

Once again, I don't know enough about the science to really take a stand on the issue. My purpose here is just to inform people who may not know, that their is another school of thought which exists.

I'm prepared to be berated for this as usual..

Gabon, the problem is not that you bring these ideas up, it is that you bring them up, insist that we must never have heard of them, that the reason we have not heard of them is becuase of some big conspiracy or that we are closed minded...

And YET, the real truth is as you just said -- you don't have enough of a science background to understand it. The worst part is you show no inclination to learn, though you want to keep bringing up these things.

When I have a bit more time, I will look at the particular article you cited. Right now.. just trying is giving me a headache. I already have a few other things to deal with (outside of CC).

Looking back at your initial response to my first post, it would seem as though you had somewhat of a problem with me bringing these things up. The reason that I brought up the topic is precisely because I have an inclination to learn, but the following response:

Interesting, if you feel free to ignore real science.

No Gabon, there is not real, true credible evidence to that theory. There are a few people who have reasons to perpetuate that idea.

wasn't really conducive to to having a meaningful dialogue or learning. It appears that you had somewhat of an emotional reaction to the topic being brought up, and that you chose to denounce me for it out of principle.

Yes, I do think that people's ideologies often make them close minded towards scientific debate, and history is proof of this. While some people may have heard of this theory, the majority probably has not and I do think that being informed that this school of thought exists (in a major world power nonetheless) is constructive even if it isn't true..