Petroleum Is Infinite In Quantity

[DaveFoster]

I don't have faith in markets. I have faith in people. People self-regulate and systems will reach equilibrium.

There will be oil shortages, but we will scale back on our lifestyles, and we will push through.

 

[tara]

I don't have faith in markets. I have faith in people. People self-regulate and systems will reach equilibrium.

If we lived in democracies and people were well informed and had equal access to resources and power to make relevant decisions, I'd say this could have a shot.
As it is, the countries and organisations with the most power over such decisions are not functional democracies.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

I don't know of a better example than the one I gave...

I don't have faith in markets. I have faith in people. People self-regulate and systems will reach equilibrium.

Well put Dave, the market represents all of humanity, the gov't tends to represent whoever pays them.

 

[DaveFoster]

@doorknobrob Thanks Rob, I agree.

@tara I get what you're saying. If we lived in a democracy, then the power would be with the greatest number.

But here's the problem; poor people, including people in underdeveloped nations have more kids per household.

In a democracy, the less productive households would have more voting power.

Wouldn't it make more sense to give power in proportion to productive ability, rather than toward praying-and-spraying?

If you said that money does not necessarily represent productive capacity in the modern economy, then I would agree with that. The current metric is broken due to fiscal manipulation by bankers.

 

[tara]

the market represents all of humanity,

The market disproportionately represents those with money. Money is very unequally distributed, and some people have none. Therefore 'the market' does not represent humanity.
Democratic governments should represent their populations, and defend them against the excesses of private wealth (and other hazards). But often they don't. Mostly because they are corrupted by those that have accumulated too much money.

 

[tara]

But here's the problem; poor people, including people in underdeveloped nations have more kids per household.

That's a bit of an over-generalisation.
China, for instance, has lower fertility than several richer countries, and large enough population to be quite relevant.
Also, the trend is that where people have a reasonable chance at getting their basic needs met even if they don't have lots of children, and where childhood mortality is significantly reduced, and where women are educated and have access to birth control, tend to reduce the number of children they have.

In a democracy, the less productive households would have more voting power.

Depends how you measure productivity. If you define it as the market does, you can circularly claim this. But a lot of the most important work that gets done is unpaid or underpaid, so I don't think this is accurately measured.

Wouldn't it make more sense to give power in proportion to productive ability, rather than toward praying-and-spraying?

Productive ability is largely a product of investment by others. No-one is a 'self-made-man'. Ideally, a society could be organised to allow everyone to contribute usefully. Unemployment, illness, disability, lack of education, etc, are [ETA:] in part deliberately and structurally determined by the wealth-holders.

 

[tara]

If you said that money does not necessarily represent productive capacity in the modern economy, then I would agree with that. The current metric is broken due to fiscal manipulation by bankers.

I agree with this - definitely part of the problem.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Athens: Democracy: lasted 100 years
Rome: Republic: lasted 1000 years (Technically 500 years but foundation was built as a republic) and founded civilization as we know it.

 

[jaguar43]

Bankers are just people. They'll lend money if they predict profit. In a dire energy situation, they'll find profit in solar.

Banks don't lend money when they "predict profit". They lend when there is a 100% chance of making money. So that means giving out credit to earn interest on that specific credit. Or to lend for stock buybacks and corporate raiding and merges. Even if they lend for "innovation" they underwrite the stock at a low price and tell insiders to buy the floats if they double in price. If the stock doesn't go up the company just got screwed over.

 

[mayweatherking]

if we had to we could survive off wind and solar energy..... when we run out of oil, it will just switch to something differnet.. the profit will drive innovation i think

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Yes jag, no capital can be formed in this environment with the 0% interest rates, big companies don't innovate anymore, they just borrow and buy back their stock, insanity...

 

[tara]

Athens: Democracy

Kind of. If you happened to be in the lest than 20% of population permitted to vote.
'Participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen who owned land and was not a slave, and the number of these "varied between 30,000 and 50,000 out of a total population of around 250,000 to 300,000." '
Athenian democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jaguar43]

Return momentarily to the early days of the Cold War
when an isolated Soviet Union tasked their top scientists to identify the actual source of oil.
Not a weekend homework assignment. After considerable research, in 1956, Russian scientist
Professor Vladimir Porfir’yev announced that “crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no
intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are
primordial [originating with the earth’s formation] materials which have been erupted from
great depths.”
If your eyeballs didn’t fall out when you read that, you might want to read it again.
He said oil doesn’t come from anything biologic, not, as conventional wisdom dictates, from the
fossilized remains of dinosaurs and/or ancient plant matter. It comes from very deep in the
earth and is created by a biochemical reaction that subjected hydrocarbons (elements having
carbon and hydrogen) to extreme heat and intense pressure during the earth’s formation.
Russians referred to this oil (any oil, really) as “abiotic oil” because it is not created from the
decomposition of biological life forms, but rather from the chemical process continually
occurring inside the earth.
I know, easy for Porfir’yev to say. But it turns out it was more than just a theory.
Because shortly after the Russians discovered this, they started drilling ultra‐deep wells and
finding oil at 30,000 and 40,000 feet below the earth’s surface. These are staggering depths,
and far below the depth at which organic matter can be found, which is 18,000 feet.
Interesting, eh?
The Russians applied their theory of abiotic deep‐drilling technology to the Dnieper‐Donets
Basin, an area understood for the previous half a century to be barren of oil. Of sixty wells
drilled there using abiotic technology, thirty‐seven became commercially productive—a 62
percent success rate compared with the roughly 10 percent success rate of a U.S. wildcat driller.
The oil found in the basin rivaled Alaska’s North Slope.
Let’s say they had a good hair day.
But it doesn’t stop there, not by a long shot. Since their earlier discoveries, the major Russian
oil companies have quietly drilled more than 310 ultra‐deep wells and put them into
production.
Result? Russia recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the planet’s largest oil producer.
Maybe they are onto something.
Though there were papers written on this early on, almost all were in Russian and few made it
to the West. And those that did were laughed at.
No more. With Russia’s rejection of the Exxon‐Yukos deal (Putin did not want this technology
and their abiotic oil experts exported to the West) and the access to information now available
on the Internet, the word has begun to spread rapidly to the West. Still, it hasn’t taken hold yet.
Why not? This is huge. Oil is not a fossil fuel! And it’s renewable! Wow!
There are a couple of factors at play here.
Big oil has a vested interest in pushing the idea that oil is scarce, hard to find, and thus costly to
produce—all of which, of course, means increased revenues and profits. This is a story in itself,
but not the primary focus here.
More relevant to our story is the fact that a cornerstone of the environmental movement is
this: oil is a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel that is scarce, and is in limited and ever decreasing supply.
Moreover, its production creates carbon dioxide. Therefore its use, for virtually all productive
purposes—agricultural production, real estate construction, auto, truck, train and air
transportation, utilities, heating, cooling, communication, ad infinitum (all of them)—must be curtailed.

Ray Peat in generative energy talked about alternative views on the creation of petroleum. I think Ray Peat mention that he thought it was created at the center of the earth similar to volcanos or something . So I think you are on to something interesting. And probably right.

As for Putin not allowing for the Exxon-Yukos deal, Russian's economy is almost all natural resource base. Similar to before the Russian revolution. They practically have no industry because it was all strip during the privatization during Yeltsin era. I highly doubt the science during the Soviet Union lasted because the country went to shreds unfortunately after the USSR fell.

 

[tara]

if we had to we could survive off wind and solar energy..... when we run out of oil, it will just switch to something differnet.. the profit will drive innovation i think

The lead time for such a transition is probably decades. Laisse faire markets are not renowned for solving such problems well. The countries where there have been significant moves towards more sustainable energy supply have done so in significant part by government influence.
In some countries, incl. the US, the govts are more likely to keep propping up the fossil fuel and nuclear industries with subsidies for a while yet.

In a new and disturbing report from researchers at the International Monetary Fund, the world’s governments are providing subsidies to the highly profitable oil industry to the tune of an astonishing $5.3 trillion in benefits per year.

"
Report Shows The Oil Industry Benefits From $5.3 Trillion in Subsidies Annually

The report it refers to is this one, but I haven't got round to looking at it more closely.
How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?

 

[charlie]

Ray Peat in generative energy talked about alternative views on the creation of petroleum. I think Ray Peat mention that he thought it was created at the center of the earth similar to volcanos or something . So I think you are on to something interesting. And probably right.

 

[Sheila]

This thread has taken some interesting turns.

The original document merely states a certain scientific viewpoint. It is certainly not the pre-ordained, current, 'accepted' view point, so a questioning, all-may-not-be-what-it-seems, report would be perhaps familiar to those around here.
It doesn't promote using the stuff, it just says there may be room for another point of view with respect to oil's genesis and, thereby what we currently believe to be the lifespan of 'deposits'.
It doesn't mean of course that we should use it, but that's always down to humans, not the oil per se.

US Professor Thomas Gold, a controversial (meaning out-of-the-box-thinking, cross-disciplinary, ahead of his time) astrophysicist, wrote a compelling book on 'the myth of fossil fuels' entitled "The Deep Hot Biosphere" in 1999.
All the usual suspects had a fit - and indeed, the geopolitical implications are horrendous - but he actually went drilling and experimented to test his theories, like the Russians before him, rather than just read a bit and pontificated thereupon (like me here for example!).

At College, I used to believe that 50% of what I was taught was correct, I just didn't know which was the 50%.
I'm not sure it was that high these days, a mixture of hope and dogma and some rigour, so when it comes to mainstream 'facts', I think 20% might be closer, (kind even) and that there is room for a lot more explanations of our cherished 'facts' than we currently prefer to entertain, me included. What we do with those facts, and our tendency to the short-sighted approach, is another matter.

Many humans do not much care for uncertainty. And Thomas Gold, for one, like the Russians before him, liked to think about what we think we know and whether it was really true, a bit like someone else we know.

Sheila

 

[Parsifal]

At College, I used to believe that 50% of what I was taught was correct, I just didn't know which was the 50%.
I'm not sure it was that high these days, a mixture of hope and dogma and some rigour, so when it comes to mainstream 'facts', I think 20% might be closer, (kind even) and that there is room for a lot more explanations of our cherished 'facts' than we currently prefer to entertain, me included. What we do with those facts, and our tendency to the short-sighted approach, is another matter.

What did you study to college Sheila? Interesting post by the way, thank you :).

 

[Such_Saturation]

So you're saying that oil just springs into existence and that all the depleted wells in the world are secretly just shut down because there is more profit potential with fewer wells, and that humanity should just sip the koolaid and continue on our own self destructive path instead of evolve towards a higher technological capability, and that unlimited petroleum somehow equates to it being environmentally friendly...

Strawman

 

[Tenacity]

It makes me so sad to see posts like this on the site because it cuts away at my confidence that the nutrition ideas (that I'm here for) are legit.

The following post does not strictly pertain to the topic at hand, but I thought this post by 3ball was important.

The fact that you feel this way indicates that the way Peat and the members of this forum present their evidence for nutrition is fundamentally different to the way in which posts and articles posted in this board present their respective evidence. This is good - if we just listened to our bodies and gut instincts more, we'd be more intelligent people.

So what feels different about Peat's and RPF's evidence and the evidence presented, for example, in this thread (and the website the article in this thread is posted on)? I find when I read Peat the ideas all seem to mesh together. Mechanisms are explained. Terms are elaborated on. When I read the article above, and some of the articles the website was posted on, I still entertained the possibility that they were true but one thing was different - I felt afraid. I felt afraid of the implications of the information being given to me. This does not mean one should dismiss the argument being put forth, but this fear response is a very clear indicator to me that this is not a trustworthy source of information. Fear is a very prime motivator in people, and so individuals may seek to manipulate that fear by putting forth scientifically-testable information wrapped in talk of politics. I don't recall any talk of politics in Peat's articles, except where the economy is concerned. I think it would be wise for all of us to consider this when discussing the intentions of the authors of 'alternative' ideas.

I wrote this down in my journal today, and is the main message I wish to impart with you all. "If anyone tries to inform you of something using fear, be extremely sceptical of their claims. Threat of illness is one example, but conspiracy nuts also use fear of government to manipulate people. Fear is incredibly motivating. Form conclusions on testable facts, not fear."

The article actually posted in this thread did not induce fear in me, by the way. The site it was hosted on certainly had such questionable articles, however. I agree that it is possible petroleum may have genesis apart from a biological one, but do not agree with the implications put forth by some people that this indicates some kind of conspiracy.

 

[jaguar43]

The following post does not strictly pertain to the topic at hand, but I thought this post by 3ball was important.

The fact that you feel this way indicates that the way Peat and the members of this forum present their evidence for nutrition is fundamentally different to the way in which posts and articles posted in this board present their respective evidence. This is good - if we just listened to our bodies and gut instincts more, we'd be more intelligent people.

So what feels different about Peat's and RPF's evidence and the evidence presented, for example, in this thread (and the website the article in this thread is posted on)? I find when I read Peat the ideas all seem to mesh together. Mechanisms are explained. Terms are elaborated on. When I read the article above, and some of the articles the website was posted on, I still entertained the possibility that they were true but one thing was different - I felt afraid. I felt afraid of the implications of the information being given to me. This does not mean one should dismiss the argument being put forth, but this fear response is a very clear indicator to me that this is not a trustworthy source of information. Fear is a very prime motivator in people, and so individuals may seek to manipulate that fear by putting forth scientifically-testable information wrapped in talk of politics. I don't recall any talk of politics in Peat's articles, except where the economy is concerned. I think it would be wise for all of us to consider this when discussing the intentions of the authors of 'alternative' ideas.

I wrote this down in my journal today, and is the main message I wish to impart with you all. "If anyone tries to inform you of something using fear, be extremely sceptical of their claims. Threat of illness is one example, but conspiracy nuts also use fear of government to manipulate people. Fear is incredibly motivating. Form conclusions on testable facts, not fear."

The article actually posted in this thread did not induce fear in me, by the way. The site it was hosted on certainly had such questionable articles, however. I agree that it is possible petroleum may have genesis apart from a biological one, but do not agree with the implications put forth by some people that this indicates some kind of conspiracy.

First point. Why would you feel afraid of the the article or simply what made you feel "afraid" ?

Second point. So anything that makes a fear response should be categorized as not being a trustworthy source of information ? I don't think thats a good response. Things should be categorized as not being a trustworthy source of information when there is no evidence to back up the claims. Having a false sense of security it probably more damaging then being one hundred percent wrong.

I don't think anyone has really gone off the deep end with trying to tie it to conspiracy. Someone posted the possibility of Russia having access of the knowledge pertaining to Abiogenetic petroleum. It's possible but not very clear. Your not really being specific on what you are referring to.