Title: abiotic theory of oil?
meemoe_uk - January 24, 2008 12:19 PM (GMT)
Thought I'd join after seeing the mega amount of info on anti global warming. Looking forward to reading some of it.
But while I browsed all of it ( took 1 hour ) I notice Andrew has slipped a discredited theory in.
The abiotic theory of oil.
How did that get in there?
Andrew - January 24, 2008 12:40 PM (GMT)
The theory is not discredited, it is simply an alternate theory. I don't for a minute buy the Peak Oil theory BTW.
meemoe_uk - January 29, 2008 01:09 AM (GMT)
Well I'm not a oil scientist so I can't point you to anything specific evidence against abiotic oil. I can only says it's a minority view, and has always been one.
'PO is false' does not imply abiotic oil.
If you don't subscribe to PO geological depletion model, what do you make of the current oil geopolitics?
The most sensible anti PO theory to explain the recent oil grab is the IBC is simply getting a firm grip on the oil wells so they can row the economy nicely without significant oil producers defying the row.
Do you think the North Sea has peaked?
Where is the new oil coming from?
Andrew - January 29, 2008 01:26 AM (GMT)
The fact is we have not been able to prove how oil is formed, we are unable to see a cross section of the earth to know for sure what the actual amount of oil exists, therefore it is impossible to make any Peak Oil predictions which are all done by the same doomsday nut jobs. When someone gets me this information I will begin to listen, until then Peak Oil has been proven false by the constantly wrong predictions year after year.
meemoe_uk - January 29, 2008 11:12 AM (GMT)
The terms 'proof', 'prove' are inapplicable to science. Nothing can be prooved about nature. Ideally, data fits a prediction perfectly every time it is tested- this is evidence, but it is not proof.
AFAIK oil labs have sucessfully recreated the steps from algae to kerogen to oil,gas. If so thats an evidence back theory of oil. But no links at hand.
Fill a Pressurized vessel with an unknown amount of water. Puncture the vessel. Measuring the rate of the water released, the size of the vessel and the pressure will allow a good estimate of how much water is in the bucket.
The physics is 300 years old. Kids are taught how to do it at college. All relavent measurements in the oil well analogy can be taken, along with many others that take into account the complexitys of the reserviors.
Based on this PO prediction is possible.
Constantly wrong predictions?
Where are these constantly wrong predictions?
I think your refering to IBC propaganda, which is made to tell the masses there is no problems\issues with oil.
Hubbert said 1999 back in approx 1954 but he didn't take into account the 1970s economic row which stalled the PO event. Some believe we won't do better than the 2005-2006 peak. If so then this validates Hubbert.
Andrew - January 29, 2008 02:17 PM (GMT)
Please don't lecture me on what definition of a word I use.
Prove as in "to establish the truth of something"
It is not been proven how oil is formed, we do not know how much oil exists in the earth. Peak Oil cannot be proven based on simple logic.
Hubbert's prediction has been proven wrong, excuses are not allowed for failed predictions.
Please tell me exactly how much oil is in the earth and then prove it. If you are unable to do this you have absolutely no case.
meemoe_uk - January 29, 2008 06:25 PM (GMT)
It is vital to distinguish between 'evidence' and 'proof', it immediatly leads to confusion otherwise.
It is impossible to establish any truth in nature. The best that can be done is to have a theory of best fit, i.e. one that is correct more than any other theory.
There are always people who say "you can't proove anything" to scientists, and they are right, but this is poor grounds to disregard science, i.e. theorys and evidence.
|Hubbert's prediction has been proven wrong, excuses are not allowed for failed predictions.|
The prediction was wrong, but the model was validated. Assumptions are key thing here.
If a ball rolls down a hill and someone predicts it's position assumming it'll continue uninterupted, then someone stops the ball with their foot, the guys prediction for that instance would fail, but his model has not been discredited, because his model didn't apply since the assumptions weren't met.
There is no proof of biogenic oil, but there is a stack of evidence.
You can make oil by sticking leaves in a pond. Anywhere where there is water, a lack of oxygen, organic matter, and certain common conditions and no disturbances, transformation from organic matter to hydro-carbon is possible and common.
That's evidence. Simple oil production on a small scale.
If it works in a small pond, will it work in a large pond? If a large pond, a lake? If a lake, a sea?
If it works in simple situations, can it work in more complex situations? Like leaves in a pond, then buried under sediment, then heated and pressured?
| excuses are not allowed for failed predictions.|
God's little known 11th comandment?
Scientific practice is to list things that could have adversly affected a measurement, or experiment. I am happy to read such lists. If your saying you disregard such lists and only accept a theory if it fits data precisely, then your cutting yourself off from alot of scientific work. Most perfectly good science measurements contain error.
I'm going to leave it there. There is plenty of oil infomation on the web, and it's clear you are capable of doing your own research. Hubbert's papers used evidence to estimate ( not proove ) the amount of convential oil ( liquid extractable by pressure wells) on Earth, and the estimates were around 2 trillion barrels.
If you have your heart set on PO being false, then I doubt I'll have any effect.
Andrew - January 30, 2008 12:14 AM (GMT)
Please tell me exactly how much oil is in the earth. I am not interested in estimates. If you are unable to do that then it is impossible to determine the "Peak".
Hubert's predictions were wrong, you do not get a do over when you are wrong.
Ducc - January 30, 2008 05:41 AM (GMT)
|It is vital to distinguish between 'evidence' and 'proof', it immediatly leads to confusion otherwise.|
:rofl: Told you, Drew.
Fyi meemoe_uk, we've had this discussion before. For the purpose of talking to Drew about science, apply "proof" = "evidence". You'll also have to keep from getting confused about his claims that something "isn't proven", when it is in fact pretty decent evidence. Just a heads up. :)
Karl - January 30, 2008 09:10 AM (GMT)
I am sick of this crap.
|It is impossible to establish any truth in nature.|
Put down the French philosophy book and learn the scientific method, people.
From a college physics class, written by a college professor. Read it and keep re-reading it till you understand it. Andrew's interpretation is essentially correct. And his use of language is true to the spirit of science.
|Peak Oil has been proven false by the constantly wrong predictions year after year.|
...is a scientific statement, as science is all about empirical testing, and yes, you do PROVE scientific theories right or wrong with empirical testing. That is how science works.
|The best that can be done is to have a theory of best fit, i.e. one that is correct more than any other theory.|
When you have a theory that is true for all tests within a specific realm, then any untruth about it is IRRELEVANT, for the theory is effective and true for that realm. (And if that realm is a meaningful and useful one, then theory that is a meaningful and useful theory.)
A fine example is Newton's theory of gravitation, which is beautifully true and effective for virtually all situations involving humans on Earth, but breaks down as you approach the speed of light. Does that mean that Newton's theory is untrue? No, it means that it works only within a limited realm. But the realm that it works in... is the realm that we live our everyday lives in.
Newton's laws of motion give us a complete description of the behavior of moving objects at low speeds. The laws are different at speeds reached by the particles at SLAC.
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity describes the motion of particles moving at close to the speed of light. In fact, it gives the correct laws of motion for any particle. This doesn't mean Newton was wrong, his equations are contained within the relativistic equations. Newton's "laws" provide a very good approximate form, valid when v is much less than c. For particles moving at slow speeds (very much less than the speed of light), the differences between Einstein's laws of motion and those derived by Newton are tiny. That's why relativity doesn't play a large role in everyday life. Einstein's theory supercedes Newton's, but Newton's theory provides a very good approximation for objects moving at everyday speeds.
If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?
In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was ``the Truth''.
During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton's theory, these observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory is ``the Truth''.
So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn't. The Universe is still the same as it ever was. When a theory is said to be ``true'' it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence. But even the best of theories have, time and again, been shown to be incomplete: though they might explain a lot of phenomena using a few basic principles, and even predict many new and exciting results, eventually new experiments (or more precise ones) show a discrepancy between the workings of nature and the predictions of the theory. In the strict sense this means that the theory was not ``true'' after all; but the fact remains that it is a very good approximation to the truth, at lest where a certain type of phenomena is concerned.
Get it through your head: Einstein's theory and modern testing did not make Newton's theory of gravitation "untrue" for practical and scientific purposes, it just showed that it was incomplete--that it did not apply to all situations.
Statements like ""It is impossible to establish any truth in nature" are bullshit, pure and simple. Even worse, they are NON-SCIENTIFIC. Just because we don't know 100% about everything in the universe does not mean we throw up our hands and say "I can't establish any truth!"
If you are gonna say bullshit like that, then you are simply NOT a scientist, but a philosopher, and a whiny one at that. Go fantasize about the "metaphysical unknowable nature of ultimate reality" and leave the science to the scientists. And while you're at it, read some classical philosophers who didn't whine but instead advanced truth--like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. For the true great philosphers were also great advocates of science--indeed, they were some of the greatest scientists of their times.
TC_ - January 30, 2008 04:47 PM (GMT)
I believe that you are both right...
I.E. if by "truth" you mean "absolute" knowledge, then meemo_uk is correct: little, if anything, can be known with absolute certainy (see Heisenberg) and the best us imperfect humans can do is to keep developing and refining our theories to achieve a "best fit" condiditon in describing the World.
The good news is that this Scientific model is extremely successful; Even Steven Hawking predicts "We will know the Mind of God".
But even if that final Eschaton of perfect understanding is never actually reached, and Max Born's "end of Physics" is still a ways off, it may not matter much- we are advancing so rapidly that in practical terms, I think we will eventually reach a generation that will achieve total mastery over Nature, even to the point of determining what future generations of "men" will look like. (see C.S. Lewis: The Abollition of Man)
So have a Good Day....albeit not a 'Perfect' one :)
Andrew - January 30, 2008 06:07 PM (GMT)
Please no more of the philosophical arguments. I define my own words. And I made no claim of absolute perfection thus meemo_uk is not correct. No one but I can define the context of my own words. Anyone can ask for further clarification but once given you have no ability to redefine what I stated.
Without knowing the exact amount of oil in the earth there is no way to accurately predict it's Peak. The logic of this irrefutable. Thus all predictions about Peak Oil are a waste of time.
Sunsettommy - January 31, 2008 05:44 AM (GMT)
This link should excite a few of you guys.Just ignore the anti-semitic remarks and read the interesting article.I have a forum section just about Abiotic Oil.Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam
Copyright Joe Vialls, 25 August 2004
In 1970 the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production. Last Year Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest single oil producer, and is now set to completely dominate global oil production and sales for the next century.
If the opening paragraph of this report started by claiming that completely unlimited crude oil reserves exist inside planet earth, readers might be tempted to regard the entire text as preposterous ghostwriting for a novelist like Frederick Forsyth. If the report then went on to claim that the Russians have exploited this stunning reality for nearly thirty years, right under the largely unwitting noses of western intelligence, readers could be excused for mistaking the author for a lunatic, or perhaps as a front for spy novelist John le Carré. The problem here is that unlimited oil reserves do exist inside planet earth, and the Russians long ago developed the advanced technology necessary to recover these unlimited oil reserves in an efficient and timely manner.
Profoundly disturbing hard intelligence like this does not sit well with the frantic cries of western academic shills and lobbyists, determined to convince you all that the end of the oil world is nigh, or, more accurately, that America faces an imminent catastrophe when global production capacity "Peaks", i.e. when world demand for crude oil finally exceeds the rate at which we can physically pump the required product out of the ground. The gist of these false claims are outlined in a speech given at the at the University of Clausthal, by lobbyist Doctor Colin Campbell during December 2000: http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html