End of Peak Oil: 200-Year Supply Of Oil In One Single Shale Formation

Peak Oil is real, in 2005 Alex Jones said that it was a scam. With Which David Strahan replied in an email I sent him in 2007, "He's an idiot."

Read some books on the subject.
 
Exactly, and the media still isn't willing to talk about the implications of peak oil on the American suburban lifestyle.

Peak oil is possibly true, possibly not - at least in the currently delineated time frames.

Let us not forget the very deep wells the Soviets drilled and hit oil - as I recall up to 57,000 feet. That's over ten miles. If there really is oil that deep, the fossil fuel theory of formation is pretty well out the window and one must ask how does the oil come into being way down there.

I think some on this forum are unwilling to accept peak oil because it demonstrates that the free market usually doesn't solve problems before they happen.

Careful now, or your ignorance may start showing. We don't have "free" markets and probably never did, thus far - though they were once far closer to it than they have been in the past 100 years.

Economies are not simple creatures, particularly large ones such as that of the USA. Many factors bring effects upon them and one of the biggest and most perfidious has proven to be government interference. There is a place for some governance in the free markets, e.g. making sure XYZ Inc is not filling your local water table with violent chemical poisons that end up killing your children or causing dead fetuses to grow from the sides of your head. But the range of such legitimacy is extremely narrow and as currently practiced constitutes an immense drag upon the economy and a great insult to the liberties of the individual.

It is precisely the unfree nature of our markets that have resulted in most of the disasters we have enjoyed over the years. I will also point out that a great proportion of the regulatory infrastructure in this nation appears to have been set into place not for the purposes of protecting one and all and ensuring equal market opportunity for every player, but rather the precise opposite: to ensure the entrenched interests maintain their standings at the least, grow them at possible, and are able to abandon all worry of any meaningful competition in the otherwise free markets.

The markets are free on the buy-side. You may purchase or not as you please - though even that is now falling by the wayside. On the sell-side the story is very different in many cases. In many markets, regulatory requirements have erected barriers to entry such that only the most well-heeled efforts stand even the first chance of breaking into oligopolistic markets with heavily entrenched players. You can have a Model-T in any color you like, just so long as it's black because this is America - land of opportunity and choice. Not.

We're going to have a rough time in this country dealing with really expensive gas until we reconfigure our society to not need it so much.

This may or may not be true. You are stating it a bit too confidently. And at any rate, if it proves out as you predict it does not follow that it does so for the reasons you assert. There have been far too many synthetic crises foisted upon the American people for any intelligent man to accept what you claim on its face. Hanky panky runs amok in this world to the point you cannot really trust that the sky is blue if "authorities" tell you it is. My suggestion to you is to not be quite so horny to dismiss possible conspiracies to manipulate public opinion because the history of such affairs prove you so brutally and conclusively wrong.

Be more careful in how you consider the things you "know". That goes for all of us.
 
Just kinda a correction I feel I have to say. Peak oil has never been about the supply of oil, it's been I believe about the ease of extracting said oil. Oil has not become rarer, but the oil that we extract now is harder to extract, similar to various ores.

The age old "low hanging fruit" deal.
 
Can someone more knowledgable than myself please explain how it is that hydrocarbons exist elsewhere in our solar system, yet abiotic oil is considered a non-possibility according to orthodox scientific thinking.

I believe the technical term is "bullshit". We have been lied to. How surprising, don't you agree?
 
Peak Oil is real, in 2005 Alex Jones said that it was a scam. With Which David Strahan replied in an email I sent him in 2007, "He's an idiot."

Read some books on the subject.

Reading some books convinces you? Man, you're easier than shit.

Seriously, you need get back to proper skepticism. Nothing has been proven. The "peak oil" deal is based on a whole load of assumptions that may or may not hold. Peak oil theory is based on PROVEN reserves. What if there are more reserves out there? What if there are MANY more reserves out there, yet undiscovered but discoverable? What if abiotic oil proves to exist - perhaps in huge quantities?

I am not advocating for a continuation of the petroleum energy culture. Quite the opposite, in fact - but I an equally opposed to this possibly synthetic crisis of scarcity designed to corral people for purposes upon which one may only speculate, but may also deem with some nontrivial confidence to be less than in our better interests. I believe our future, such as it may be at this point, lies in other avenues of technological advance, particularly in the energy sciences. We do have a problem there, however, in that the incentives for research and development are not only absent, but going in the wrong direction. Once again it can be readily demonstrated how government established strong negative incentives for innovation along pathways by interfering with the freedom of the market to explore. Some of this may be misguided good intention, but some of it is almost certainly turf protection. Large oil companies have a vested interest in maintaining their positions of market power and may not be particularly interested in mew avenues so long as the cash cow is milking well. And when the cow starts running dry, those same companies want to make damned sure that they will be the ones to discover and develop the next generation of energy solutions, thereby ensuring and hopefully growing their positions. This is strategy 001 - remedial stuff. If you think people do not think and act in such manners you must have precious little experience in the world of big business - something I've been doing going on 30 years. Having been lunch buddies with a few notable CEOs, I can attest very directly to the mode of thinking. They have been great men, but they also have a mission to deliver the greatest value to the shareholders and that often leads companies to tread fine lines.

Government has been the single greatest enabler of perfidy and outright crime in our lives. That shit needs to be swept aside in favor of principle-based governance not by the so-called "government", but by one and all. It's a hokey sounding and trite platitude, but is is true. If we fail to govern ourselves, someone else will govern us. That is where we stand today and look at just how very lovely it all is. Spy cameras everywhere, regulated to near-death, opportunity vanishing by the minute. Oh yes, government is the answer. We CAN have governance without "government", but it is a lot of work and can only be pulled off when sufficient numbers of people want their liberty enough to actually do the work of getting it and maintaining it.
 
if I was CEO of Halliburton, I would buy any technology competing on my fracking patents.
 
Peak Oil is just common sense. Finit e world, finite resourses.
I find is astonishing that anyone could think it a "myth".
As others have indicated, the crucial issue is not how much oil there is, but how much oil there is that can be extracted for a net energy gain. There may be huge reserves but if it requires more than a barrel's worth of oil-energy to extract a barrel, it may as well be on the moon.
At the beginning of the oil age 100 years ago you could get 100 barrels at the cose of 1. Its about 10 to 1 now.
 
End of Peak Oil: 200-Year Supply Of Oil In One Single Shale Formation

There’s plenty of oil, and even the global elites can’t hide it anymore.

A.M. Freyed
Infowars.com
June 8, 2012

GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming ‘About Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves’ …
The Green River Formation – an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming – contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale. USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil. At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves. – CNS (5/11/12)

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes brothers was the guest. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “More than all the Middle East put together.” – Media Matters (5/1/12)

Carbon Currency is not a new idea, but has deep roots in Technocracy … The principal scientist behind Technocracy was M. King Hubbert, a young geoscientist who would later (in 1948-1956) invent the now-famous Peak Oil Theory, also known as the Hubbert Peak Theory. Hubbert stated that the discovery of new energy reserves and their production would be outstripped by usage, thereby eventually causing economic and social havoc. – Voice of the Resistance (5/12/12)

British-based explorer Tullow Oil PLC says it’s discovered oil off the shore of Ivory Coast. The announcement Thursday comes a year and a half after the company began pumping crude from an offshore field in neighboring Ghana worth billions of dollars. Exploration Director Angus McCoss called the finding encouraging and said the company looks forward to future drilling. –Washington Post (6/7/12)


Peak Oil nonsense has been promoted for the past half-century in the mainstream media and even in parts of the alternative media. Now, a huge discovery (see above) may finally put this elite propaganda to rest.

There are varying interpretations of how recoverable the oil is, currently anyway, but the best possibility would be to open up the site to commercial exploitation and find out. (Since it’s apparently federal land, we won’t hold our collective breath.)

This huge discovery is only one of many. Of late, there have been significant finds both in the US and abroad – and offshore as well – even around the Ivory Coast (see above). Many of these finds are only lightly reported by the mainstream media that seems to determined to ensure that people continue to think the world is running out of oil.

Peak Oil and scarcity memes in general are used to control people. Marketed by the global elites, they are intended to frighten people into giving up power to the so-called new world order. Fortunately, thanks to the Internet, the whole “green” claptrap has gradually been exposed for what it is – propaganda designed to benefit the elites that seek world government.

The idea is to control people monetarily via central banking, militarily via the “war on terror” and in almost every other way via environmental propaganda. The thought is that if oil is accepted as scarce or its outputs such as “carbon” are accepted as poisonous, then people’s lives can be constrained and appropriately organized.

To the elites, every problem looks like a nail and every solution is an international one. No doubt Peak Oil’s founder M. King Hubbert shared this perspective. Hubbert was also the force behind “Technocracy” – the idea that scientists and intellectuals ought to lead society within areas of their expertise.

That Peak Oil should have been “discovered” by M. King Hubbert ought to raise red flags. Here’s a fellow who believed in top-down dictates of those “big brains” who knew best. This follows along the lines of the ancients including Plato who believed in the rule of philosopher kings.

This is Hubbert’s pedigree. He not only believed in rule by philosopher kings, he also created a crisis that would bring these kings to the fore. That crisis was to be Peak Oil (among others).

Whenever one of these articles is written, Peak Oilers gather like metaphorical flies to point out what Peak Oil actually means and what it doesn’t. So here’s a definition from Wikipedia:

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline.

Peak Oil, within the context that Hubbert wanted it used, does NOT mean that the world is in danger of imminent scarcity only that no more oil can be extracted than is already being generated – that the world has reached peak production.

This is a fairly ridiculous perspective from an economic point of view. Legitimate economics shows us clearly that left alone human beings in the modern era will almost always find some alternative to whatever it is they are running out of. Only when people are prevented from doing so will they fail to generate what is necessary.

People, in fact, have a firm reluctance to sit at home starving in the dark. Thomas Malthus, who wrote in the 1700s and 1800s, found this out when he predicted that based on various indices, the British population would soon run out of food.

And yet … the British did not. Faced with the possibility of starving, the British did what normal, resourceful people do … they planted more foodstuffs!

In fact, as one of the Forbes brothers pointed out recently, the US itself is nowhere near running out of oil – or at least out of energy. Shale oil, oil and natural gas have all provided the Lower 48 and Canada with more energy than the Middle East.

Of course, since oil is made of “fossil fuels” it is an expendable resource. Not so fast.

In his video, “The Origin Of Oil,” Leroy Fletcher Prouty Jr., a Colonel with the United States Air Force, provides us the evolution of the phrase. Colonel Prouty, who is deceased, was a serious man who wrote two books, “The Secret Team” and “JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.” He was also consultant to Oliver Stone on the movie “JFK.”

What Prouty tells us was that “fossil fuel” was developed in the late 1800s by John D. Rockefeller’s top men to make sure people believed oil was scarce. They were provided their insights by a European conference in the late 1800s that showed “life” had a similar chemical composition to oil. Thus, they decided, oil had specific biological antecedents.

You see? Believe Prouty and even the nomenclature regarding oil is suspect. And there are even those – an increasing number – that believe oil is abiotic, the product of geological processes, which would explain why oil wells continue to fill back up.

Oil is made of hydrocarbons that have supposedly been found off-world as well, on a moon of Jupiter where no dinosaurs ever died (not a single one). And there are plenty of oil substitutes waiting in the wings should oil indeed prove scarce (not that it seems so). Cold fusion is just one of many such that seems increasingly feasible.

There is likely plenty of oil in the world … probably trillions and trillions of barrels, some of it offshore, some of it hidden away in places where various governments including the US government won’t let people drill.

So here is an alternative definition of so-called “black gold” ….

Oil: a commodity defined by subterfuge and falsely promoted by the elites as scarce via the opinions of an authoritarian scientist with a yen to run the world under technocratic philosopher kings.

You may believe in Peak Oil, but increasingly in this Internet era, it’s a stretch.


original article here:
http://www.infowars.com/end-of-peak-oil-200-year-supply-of-oil-in-one-single-shale-formation/

This argument is so nineties. Since that time, Gore invented the Internet.
 
Peak Oil is just common sense. Finit e world, finite resourses.
I find is astonishing that anyone could think it a "myth".
As others have indicated, the crucial issue is not how much oil there is, but how much oil there is that can be extracted for a net energy gain. There may be huge reserves but if it requires more than a barrel's worth of oil-energy to extract a barrel, it may as well be on the moon.
At the beginning of the oil age 100 years ago you could get 100 barrels at the cose of 1. Its about 10 to 1 now.

A better solution would be to genetically alter our DNA so everyone in the world would shrink a little during each generation. In order to feed a world of what would become trillions, the cattle would remain the same size. In time, the feed stock would become massive standing fifty stories high.
 
In 2006 the US Military consumed 117 million barrels or 320,000 barrels per day.
War is a racket,and it is tied into the oil industry.

The Department of Defense (DoD) per capita energy consumption of 524 trillion Btu is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.


The US Military budget was raised to US$532.8 Billion for the year 2007, around 3.7% of the country’s GDP. This is more than the combined defense budget of China, Russia, UK, India, Japan and the next 10 countries which top in world military spending. To keep all the tanks, ships, aircrafts and Humvee’s moving in battle’s around the world takes a lot of fuel. Did you know that the Abrams tank can travel less than 0.6 mile per gallon of fuel.
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/top_5_facts_on_us_military_oil_consumption.php
 
Last edited:
I don't like saying this, but for some individuals in the liberty movement, need realise that not everything out there is just conspiracy, lies or propaganda. Nothing lasts forever.

If you can't talk about this issue then nobody from the liberty movement can get elected to office, and be taken seriously. One answer fits all, doesn't work for this.

This is like saying we don't have any impact on the planet in any particular way, and we shouldn't do anything about it, and be selfish and let the next generation deal with it.I'm 23, the generation before have failed to make the world a better place for mine, so what will my generation do collectively in certain ways to make the world we live in better. Nuclear weapons is one example, we still have them.

While doing so, not to repeat the mistakes of empire building, or nation building or particular crap groups creating more problems for their own interests.
 
Not everyone who discounts peak oil is a "conspiracy theorist".

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring

Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring

By Gregg Laskoski
September 14, 2011 RSS Feed Print

It's our nature to sort, divide, and classify. We label ourselves to identify political leanings, religious beliefs, the food we enjoy, and the sports teams we cheer. The oil industry too has its own distinct labels which include the "Peak Oil" theorists, those who believe the world is fast depleting the finite supply of fossil fuel; and the pragmatists, those who recognize that engineering and technological advances in oil drilling and extraction continuously identify new reserves that make oil plentiful.

And there's a third group you may not know. These people are deeply interested in oil and its origins, but their advocacy of "abiotic theory" has many dismissing them as heretics, frauds, or idealists. They hold that oil can be derived from hydrocarbons that existed eons ago in massive pools deep within the earth's core. That source of hydrocarbons seeps up through the earth's layers and slowly replenishes oil sources. In other words, it turns the fossil-fuel paradigm upside down.

[Read: How Much Oil is There?]

Perhaps the breakthrough for this theory came when Chris Cooper's story appeared April 16, 1999, in The Wall Street Journal about an oil field called Eugene Island. Here's an excerpt:

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly—some say almost inexplicably—Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.

According to Cooper,

Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs, he says.

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

More recently, Forbes presented a similar discussion. In 2008 it reported a group of Russian and Ukrainian scientists say that oil and gas don't come from fossils; they're synthesized deep within the earth's mantle by heat, pressure, and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Should offshore drilling be expanded?]

The idea that oil comes from fossils "is a myth" that needs changing according to petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov, speaking at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. "All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits."

Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences estimates that 60 percent of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin and not from fossil fuels. He says companies should drill deeper to find it.

Is abiotic theory the real deal? Is Eugene Island "Exhibit A?" Look how long it's taken for this conversation to reach a tipping point!
 
Carefull examination of data does not support the abiotic theory of oil. Let us consider the Eugene Island example. It claims a "miraculous reversal" of the decline in production there. Here is their production chart:
Eugene330.jpg

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml

It did get a slight bump but then continued to decline again.

In the early 1990's an ambitious investigation of Eugene Island was undertaken through the joint auspices of the Global Basins Research Network, the Department of Energy and the oil industry.18 The purpose of the project was to develop new technologies to extract hydrocarbons from the streams which feed reservoirs instead of merely draining the reservoirs themselves, or to enhance the streams so that they will better feed the reservoirs. The study focused on Eugene Island and on the Gulf of Mexico in general because newly migrating hydrocarbons were well documented in this region, and migration approached rates of extraction. The project first had to determine the pathway of the migrating hydrocarbons and their origin.

The study determined that hydrocarbons were indeed migrating along the Red Fault. They concluded that as oils at depth are over-cooked and cracked into gas, this results in an increase of pressure. This is due to the expanding volume of gas produced from the more compacted volume of oil. When the pressure grows to hydraulic fracturing stress, the faults open and release a stream of oil and gas upward toward the surface. The migration pathways seem to branch from what appear to be three primary source areas at depth.19

The migrating hydrocarbons contain biomarkers, heavy metals, and sulfur isotopes which indicate a carbonate marine source of Cretaceous age. The three sourcing depobasins are believed to be turbidite sands: organic detritus rich sands stirred up and deposited by deep sea turbidity currents. These turbidites were capped by a salt sheet and then buried beneath 3 million years of deltaic sands, resulting in the geopressures and temperatures necessary to transform the organic detritus into oil and gas.20

Anderson, et al., concludes that a conservative estimate might place undiscovered hydrocarbons in the Northern Gulf at 20 billion barrels. The report suggests that a concerted effort to explore the entire U.S. Gulf of Mexico for similarly situated reserves might result in the discovery of greater than 50 billion barrels of unrecovered hydrocarbons.

There is no doubt that the hydrocarbons of Eugene Island are of organic origin. The recharging of Eugene Island reserves is simply the result of complicated geological structure.

The site did get an influx of oil- but from where? If the theory of abiotic oil which says that oil is being constantly being produced within the Earth and pushed towards the surface is true- this oil should be younger than the oil they were already extracting. But that is not the case. They examined the oil and tried to date it. The "new" oil is actually quite a bit older

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/26/s...refilled-naturally.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Although the reservoir from which Pennzoil is pumping oil was formed at the time of the Pleistocene epoch less than two million years ago, oil now being recovered from the reservoir has a chemical signature characteristic of the Jurassic period, which ended more than 150 million years ago,
 
Last edited:
The hard part is getting it. You have to dig up one billion tons of the moon and heat it to 600 degrees celsius (1,120 degrees Fahrenheit) to separate it (using lots of energy for both of those activities) to get 50 tons of H3 (H3 is estimated to be fifty parts per billion of the moon's surface) and then ship it back to Earth. That would power the US for two years (an estimated 25 tons a year needed).

http://io9.com/5908499/could-helium+3-really-solve-earths-energy-problems
Obtaining helium-3 from lunar regolith will not be an easy task. Best estimates of Helium-3 content place it at 50 parts per billion in lunar soil, calling for the refining of millions of tons of lunar soil before gathering enough Helium-3 to be useful in fusion reactions on Earth. Should we be so eager to strip mine the moon and destroy its surface to provide a clean energy source for Earth?

After mining lunar rock, Helium-3 is separated by heating the mass to over 600 degrees Celsius, consuming a large amount of energy in the process.

And meanwhile, transporting large quantities of Helium-3 back to Earth will be another problem. A spacecraft would likely be able to only carry a few tons of Helium-3 as payload, necessitating a revolving door of shuttles to supply enough Helium-3 to care for the Earth's energy needs. Thus, it's likely that Helium-3 is more likely to become a fuel source for lunar colonies, eliminating a need for start-up additional supplies and costly flights to and from Earth.

Due to the effort and energy needed to mine, heat, and transport Helium-3 back to Earth, it will not be a cheap energy source, but a clean alternative, one we might have to turn to in the next 100 years. Frequent trips to the Moon may also open up the lunar tourism industry, as passengers travel along with canisters of Helium-3 destined for use in fusion reactions back on Earth.

Plus building the fusion reactors to use it. Recently aproved fission nuclear reactors have an estimated cost of $14 billion each to be built and costs usually well exceed estimates.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ove-first-nuclear-power-plant-in-a-generation
The National Regulatory Agency announced it had given Southern Co. the OK to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia, making it the first new nuclear power plant approved in a generation.

The AP, which reported earlier today that the NRC was poised to give its approval, reports that one of the $14 billion reactors could be ready as soon as 2016. The second reactor could begin operating in 2017.
 
Last edited:
The site did get an influx of oil- but from where? If the theory of abiotic oil which says that oil is being constantly being produced within the Earth and pushed towards the surface is true- this oil should be younger than the oil they were already extracting. But that is not the case. They examined the oil and tried to date it. The "new" oil is actually quite a bit older

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/26/s...refilled-naturally.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

This one example is not by any stretch an open and shut case on abiotic oil. Here's one line from above:
"The migration pathways seem to branch from what appear to be three primary source areas at depth."

That is not science. That is a fallible geologist team doing their best to track it, but well it's a little difficult when it's deep below the earth's crust.

Also any hypothesis that tries to disprove abiotic oil must explain oil on other planets we have found.
 
Back
Top