The Oil Fraud

[Gobbo]

How many of you hold the opinion that petroleum products are derived from so called ‘Fossil Fuels’?

If you -do- hold that opinion, it’s wrong. This thread shall attempt to show you why.

Contrarily, the statistics of the international petroleum industry establish that, far from diminishing, the net known recoverable reserves of petroleum have been growing steadily for the past fifty years. Those statistics show that, for every year since about 1946, the international petroleum industry has discovered at least five new tons of recoverable oil for every three which have been consumed.

321energy.com/editorials/bainerm … 83105.html

Not only is oil a renewable resource, we’re not even running out. The real reason oil prices are climbing is that, as these things tend to go - someone wants more money. The production of oil is being slowed down, but we are not running out.

In this sense, the ‘Peak Oil’ hypothesis is complete rubbish and as the article indicates, it’s only the west which really buys into this illusion.

It all makes perfect sense when you think about it. Who runs this earth? THE OIL COMPANIES. Why should they want to sell oil for the cheap and plentiful rate it could be when they can simply make more money by lying?

But wait… let’s continue down the rabbit hole. Who even says we need oil at all?

youtube.com/watch?v=MSBykAngDpY

This movie is a trailer for the upcoming movie which shows the demise of the electric car which ran completely on electricity.

Or better yet, WATER.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 4168790800

gigagone.com/video/view.php? … fba0a63784

The info is all around, I already knew this but all I did was type ‘oil fraud’ into google. I beg of you… find the truth for yourselves.

[Faust]

I have a few questions.

Firstly, no one who is aware of the facts disputes that we are nor running out of oil. I surely do not refute that. There is a lot of oil in the ground.

But…

Is all of this oil recoverable at the same price? Or is some of this oil expensive to recover.

How much of the price of petroleum products is attributible to the price of crude production, and how much to refining costs? We don’t, as end users, buy crude, but refined oil.

Who is claiming that we are running out? Are many environmentalists making that claim?

What effect does increased demand have on price? Is supply the only issue? You know, that old supply-and-demand thing.

Have U. S. oil companies tried to build more refineries, only to be prevented from doing so, on environmental grounds?

I know the answers to these questions. I’m just wondering if you do.

Oh, and here’s another. What is the average price increase over the last fifty years, in constant dollars, of gasoline? How many of those years has the price actually dropped, again, in constant dollars?

Has the amount of oil that is recoverable increased only because of new finds, or because the definition of “recoverable” had changed with the development of new technology to recover it? In other words, are we getting better at recovering oil, and is that part of the reason we have more recoverable oil?

I have more. I am no particular friend of the oil industry. I just like to use a slightly more detailed model in discussing economic matters than the one you present.

Oh, and what is the average increase in the price of a ticket to your average politically correct, green and hip rock band concert? Who makes more money per year, the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, or Dave Matthews?

[Gobbo]

The info is all around, I already knew this but all I did was type ‘oil fraud’ into google. I beg of you… find the truth for yourselves.

I know the answers to these questions. I’m just wondering if you do.

yep.

Edit: Faust, this isn’t about the irrelevant specifics of the oil industry, people being aware as to the fact that we don’t need to use oil, but yet are being strangled by this purely fictional leash.

[NoelyG]

Gobbo,

Not only is oil a renewable resource, we’re not even running out

As far as I know, there is not an infinite supply of oil existing within the earth. Oil, a carbon molecule, is generated from organic matter under large pressures and heat over millions of years. That is the view held by the majority geologists today. Why necessarily take the word of one guy’s theory over the majority of others?

[Gobbo]

@NoelyG

Gobbo,

Not only is oil a renewable resource, we’re not even running out

As far as I know, there is not an infinite supply of oil existing within the earth. Oil, a carbon molecule, is generated from organic matter under large pressures and heat over millions of years. That is the view held by the majority geologists today. Why necessarily take the word of one guy’s theory over the majority of others?

Because, after reading this article (which I don’t think you did), among many other articles along the same lines, I’ve come to the conclusion that your theory, which itself is the minority, is inaccurate.

[NoelyG]

Because, after reading this article (which I don’t think you did), among many other articles along the same lines, I’ve come to the conclusion that your theory, which itself is the minority, is inaccurate.

Well firstly, I did read the article Gobbo. Secondly, you are a non-expert in these matters (as am I), so why is it that you think you can judge from reading “articles along the same lines” that one theory is correct and the other isn’t? Mis-information runs both ways. Now, I’m not saying that the abiotic oil theory is necessarily wrong, I’m just questioning why you think it is absolutely right.

[Gobbo]

Well firstly, I did read the article Gobbo. Secondly, you are a non-expert in these matters (as am I), so why is it that you think you can judge from reading “articles along the same lines” that one theory is correct and the other isn’t?

Technically, I cannot deem one to be ‘correct’, but I can certainly hold the belief that one is moreso than the other.

In this case, my knowledge of chemistry and basic geological operations, along with the evidence presented has lead me to a certain belief. I don’t see why this is so difficult… …it’s a stance. If you want to disagree, that’s fine, but give a reason moreso than ‘Well… why are you taking his side?’, as that’s a little redundant. We may not be experts, but let’s at least go somewhere with this exchange.

Personally I think we’re both of an intelligence level to do so.

[NoelyG]

Technically, I cannot deem one to be ‘correct’, but I can certainly hold the belief that one is moreso than the other.

Certainly.

I don’t see why this is so difficult… …it’s a stance. If you want to disagree, that’s fine, but give a reason moreso than ‘Well… why are you taking his side?’, as that’s a little redundant.

A stance or preference is fine. However, my difficulty lies in a lack of agnosticism in the arena of non-experts. You’re second sentence “If you -do- hold that opinion, it’s wrong” conveys to me a total absence of doubt in your conviction, which is why I questioned your justification of that conviction, being a non-expert.

Now, because I am a non-expert, I am unsure of which oil theory is correct. I don’t consider my first point redundant, as before I enter into a discussion with you Gobbo, I want to know if I have any chance of swaying your conviction. If I don’t then there isn’t much point. I hope you see where I am coming from.

I’ll admit that I am perhaps more interested in examining your thought processes when you decide to align yourself with “non-official stories” rather than the official ones, and why, as it seems to me, you are more inclined to align with the former, rather than the later.

We may not be experts, but let’s at least go somewhere with this exchange.
Personally I think we’re both of an intelligence level to do so.

Ok, well I have some counter evidence to the abiogenic theory, taken from wiki.

Key arguments against the serpentinite mechanism as being the major source of hydrocarbon deposits within the crust are;

* The lack of available pore space within rocks as depth increases; especially within the mantle
* The presence of no commercial hydrocarbon deposits within the crystalline shield areas of the major cratons especially around key deep seated structures which are predicted to host oil by the abiogenic theory [24]
* Lack of commercial oil deposits within Archaean shear-hosted lode gold deposits; the ideal analog of a long-lived structure in serpentinitised ultramafic rocks
* Limited evidence that major serpentinite belts underlie continental sedimentary basins which host oil
* Lack of conclusive proof that carbon isotope fractionation observed in crustal methane sources is entirely of abiogenic origin (Lollar et al. 2006)[25]
* Lack of mantle helium in the majority of crustal hydrocarbon sources which are definitively not related to magmatism penetrating the sedimentary basin after the oil window[26]
* Mass balance problems of supplying enough carbon dioxide to serpentinite within the metamorphic event before the peridotite is fully reacted to serpentinite
* Drilling of the Siljan Ring failed to find commercial quantities of oil[27], thus disproving Kudryavtsev's Rule and failing to locate the predicted abiogenic oils
* The eight barrels of oil-like substance produced from the Siljan borehole were proven to be diesel sludge contamination
* The distribution of sedimentary basins is caused by plate tectonics, with sedimentary basins forming on either side of a volcanic arc, which explains the distribution of oil within these sedimentary basins

[Faust]

Gobbo, anyone who thinks we need to use as much oil as we do just isn’t paying attention. Yours is a funny way to make that point. The issue is not whether oil is a finite resource or not, and that it is finite is not depenent on the pure supply. A resource is only as good as our ability to exploit it.

Your point surely was more political than you claim in your response to me. There are many alternatives to oil, some of which are not exploited on purely political grounds. It does not take an article like the one you cite, which I did read, to show this. The point made there, even if true, takes the supply of recoverable oil to be meaningful in isolation from all the other economic and social factors that make a difference. No economist would commit such a sin. When we are talking about an important commodity, one that is so integral to the overall economy, we cannot meaningfully discuss it in a vacuum.

You are free to disagree, of course. But, to repeat myself, anyone who now thinks we need oil to the degree we use it must be living in a cave. The case you make is a socio-political one, one of those age-old “arguments” that rich people are the cause of all the world’s ills. Let’s not blame the proletariat consumer, I guess - we are powerless. Paff. Nuclear power has been made unfashionable by the Greens. Except that those same greens are coming back around to nuclear power. My brother-in-law designs nuke plants, and, after an extended lull, business is starting to boom. Only because the political climate is changing. Why the oil barons have unlimited power but the nuke barons do not is a mystery to me. They are sometimes the very same people. Hmmmm.

[Disgruntled_Human]

Gobbo sounds like some worn out hippie spewing conspiracy theories.

“The gov’t found a way to make cars run on WATER man, just think about it man, no pollution, and practically free man. They’re just controlled by the oil corporations who want to make money man…”

[GliderPendalehaven]

i have also heard from reliable sources that we won’t run out of oil anytime soon, though prices well go up as the process in which it takes to get that oil increase in price.

[Disgruntled_Human]

The above is correct. Hopefully high gas prices will make people cut down on driving and CO2 emissions. However since there is increased demand the prices go up, but that will encourage more demand, thus increasing the supply and dropping prices.