Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Massive Oil field found in the Gulf... (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Massive Oil field found in the Gulf...
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of which, perhaps somebody here knows whether divining (as in divining water with a dowsing stick or locating oil by throwing goat's bones about or whatever) is considered a religious event or not ...?

For example, is the use of a divining rod licensed? Is income from divining tax exempt? Has anybody ever seen a used divining rod for sale? Did it have a guarantee?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard, I think that your post before this last one was my favorite post of yours ever.
Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
winkey,

quote:
Until then, I will rely on what I read from actual scientists and answer from my personal beliefs.
What scientists have you read on the matter? To my knowledge there aren't scientists with relevant backgrounds who are suggesting that abiotic oil accounts for petroleum reserves of any significance.

quote:
The funny part of the whole thing is that this theory, just like all the theories of origin, only matters to those who's Religious beliefs or Universal thought systems are being challenged by such concepts.
It matters to say China or India to the tune of billions of dollars a year, they would be absolutely estatic if this theory panned out, as would most countrys who are net oil importers.

Most of us discussing the issue have no vested interest in it being true or false. It being true would be quite neat in my opinion, but there is no evidence to support it being true (on a significant scale and in regards to petroleum... abiogenic oil is not the same arguement as abiogenic methane).

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Corsi and Smith directly challenge the "peak oil" theory advanced in 1956 by Shell Oil's M. King Hubbert.

In an interview with WND, Smith posed the following question: "If U.S. proven oil reserves can be increased by 50 percent with one deep-earth oil find in the Gulf of Mexico, who knows how much oil might be found as the technology of deep-water drilling advances and becomes even more economically feasible?"

Oy, if that quote is supposed to be a refutation of Hubbert, this guy's got to be one of the worst "scientists" ever.

The so-called "Peak Oil" theory isn't a challenger to the abiotic theory. Hubbert didn't care one wit where the oil came from. He was a statistician (well, ok, not really, but that's what the Hubbert curve is based on). He used statistics to predict stuff. And as anyone who knows anything about stats knows, a single counterexample proves nothing. Moreover, the old stats become useless when new data comes in. Not that it really matters. The whole Peak Oil thing has already happened in MOST oil producing countries, generally trending very well with the Hubbert curve. One little discovery isn't going to change that.

After all, just look at what Hobsen stated. This could boost US oil production by 11% within 6 years. Excellent! Too bad US oil production has decreased by 12% over the past 5 years. Chances are that trend will continue (it has been, quite steadily, since 1985). In other words, this discovery MIGHT keep us steady at current production. Which is about half that of peak production.

So winkey, if your statement that this would piss off people was meant as a jab toward those banking on alternate energy, then, as one of those people, I can assure you that this isn't the case. This isn't solving our oil crisis. It's merely making it a bit more manageable. After all, this massive reserve is only a 5 year supply of oil at current consumption levels. And with India and China rising so quickly, we all know current consumption levels isn't a good basis for predicting the future...

In any case, going back to the whole outlier thing. Winkey, you have to look at this in a bigger perspective. It's nice that we get a discovery this large, but note how newsworthy it is. That's because discoveries have been declining. US discoveries hit its peak back in the 30s, while worldwide oil discoveries peaked in 1960. We've been finding less and less new oil for the past 45 years! How does ONE new discovery change that? The only thing one can argue is that it hasn't been economically feasible to search for more oil. And yet there have been several oil shocks within this time period, and I don't believe they corresponded to significant jumps in oil discovery. So while this new oil field may be nice, we're going to need to find a lot more before I believe the trend is reversing. As it is, we're still using oil faster than we can find it.

I'm not going to even bother commenting on the abiotic origin of oil. Suffice to say I'll wait until I hear a convincing theory of HOW it happens, not just that it might. More importantly, it really doesn't matter, because it doesn't touch on the rate of conversion. If we're still consuming oil at a faster rate than the earth can magically turn rocks into it, we're still screwed. Hence, back to square one.

Anywho, glad to see we gt more oil. Probably not as glad as the next President though. He (or she) will be able to (possibly) tout falling gas prices during his term! Talk about a ratings booster! [Razz]

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmmm... Then maybe I am totally wrong.


and maybe not. [Eek!]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by winkey151:
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
The funny part of the whole thing is that this theory, just like all the theories of origin, only matters to those who's Religious beliefs or Universal thought systems are being challenged by such concepts.
I'm sure they also matter to the scientists in the relevant fields.
You are assuming that I think that science isn't a form of Religion.
Right, that view would explain a lot.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rallan... are you in the market for a new job?

You would make a great religious leader. [Razz]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Massive Oil field found in the Gulf..."

of your mom's face!

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by winkey151:
You are assuming that I think that science isn't a form of Religion.

Well thats a foolish thing to say. In what way are you defining religion that makes it comparable to science?
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, it's not necessarily a foolish thing to say if he would actually support the position...

Winkey, revelling in your ignorance, then implying that those who disagree with it are blindly following religious doctrine is a tactic, it's just not an effective one. Unless your goal is t become a troll, I suppose...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dey:
Actually, known US reserves have been enough to keep up with US needs; the problem is that known US reserves are not enough to keep up with oil-company sales commitments. Where do you think all that Alaska oil went?

Leaving aside the matter of terminology (reserves can't possibly keep up with demand - one is a volume, the other is a rate of change of volume...)

In 2002, the US produced about 9.0 million barrels per day, and consumed 19.8 million. They're just the most recent numbers in a report I was reading. Oil production in the US however peaked in 1970, about about twice that output.

Now production is partly economic: if the price of oil goes up, it becomes viable to extract oil from some 'empty' wells, and production can go up somewhat. Oil reserves are also a function of price: Reserves estimates are the amount of oil that can be extracted for profit at current prices (more or less) - multiply the price of oil by a factor of 10, and reserves estimates go up because more oil is ecnonomically viable to remove, although obviously if the price is up by a factor of 10, then an oil crisis is already upon us [Big Grin]

Note that big improvements in the ability to find oil were made in the 80's and 90's, yet didn't alter the profile of US oil production at all. See http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/5733/usoilom4.jpg

Also check out the worldwide rate of discovery of new reserves vs the worldwide oil consumption (this figure would be worse for the US alone which was explored for oil pretty early on, and which has had the most rapid growth in consumption over the last few decades). Notice that since around 1980, we have been using oil faster than it is being discovered, at a steadily increasing rate. Nothing has changed since this graph was made either...
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2039/usoil2rm4.jpg

So known oil reserves peaked around 1980, and have been declining ever since then.

Reserves figures are always worth reading with caution, since they can be mis-reported for political or economic reasons, and can't be independently verified. So the true nature of middle east oil stocks is somewhat uncertain.

Notice that none of this depends on assumptions about what makes the oil. It is simply observation of how much oil is in fact being discovered and extracted.

BTW Notice that Winkey's "answer my questions and I'll answer yours (even though you asked first)" was never carried through. His questions were answered. The closest he came to an answer so far seems to be "since I know nothing about the subject, all theories appear equally likely to me, so my pet theory has as much support as yours does"...

(Images taken from a long 2002 report http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf which appears to have been comissioned by the Department of Energy).

EDIT to add: the oil import/export figures might not be quite as straight-forward as they seem - I think they refer simply to where the oil goes to be processed. If for example it is used to manufacture plastics which are used to make something which is exported to Bolivia, then I don't think Bolivia is credited with the consumption of that oil... So the import and export of goods derived from oil isn't included. But since the biggest single use for oil is for fuel, that doesn't seem like a big issue to me. But it is worth mentioning.

[ September 07, 2006, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: vulture ]

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After looking back, I admit my statement was pretty broad. I know that that science in part is just the observation of and the disecting of facts in our surroundings. I am thinking more of the theories and concepts that are widely held by "science" that are accepted as fact, when it is possible that reality is different.

The reason it seems like to me like a form of religion has to do with the faith you need in order to believe some of the theories, the belief system needed to hold on to theories when many have holes in them and the unwillingness to consider anything that runs contrary to said beliefs.

To me... that sounds a lot like Religion.

As for being a troll... I guess that is up to the consensus of the board.

[ September 07, 2006, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: winkey151 ]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To me... that sounds a lot like Religion.
You think religion constitutes an unwillingness to consider anything that runs contrary to one's beliefs?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
To me... that sounds a lot like Religion.
You think religion constitutes an unwillingness to consider anything that runs contrary to one's beliefs?
Well... it isn't the only thing but it is one thing that seems to be common among the "religious".

You don't agree?

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There ARE better words to use. Dogmatic, perhaps? There are religious folks who are dogmatic, and there are people who are dogmatic about their "scientific" theories.

[ September 07, 2006, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nicely put, javelin. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
There ARE better words to use. Dogmatic, perhaps? There are religious folks who are dogmatic, and there are people who are dogmatic about their "scientific" theories.

Yes... thanks Javelin. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, thanks for the compliment. [Smile]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
winkey,

quote:
The reason it seems like to me like a form of religion has to do with the faith you need in order to believe some of the theories, the belief system needed to hold on to theories when many have holes in them and the unwillingness to consider anything that runs contrary to said beliefs.
We've discussed faith and science before - it really doesn't require faith - just statistical reasoning. I agree that their are many individuals who are dogmatic in their scientific beliefs, and even individuals whose beliefs regarding science are purely 'faith based'. However the key differentiator is that faith is generally acknowledged as a requirement for religion, whereas it is unneccessary for scientific beliefs. Incidentally what theories do you believe 'have holes in them' that have proposals that have as great (or even a small part of) an explanatory power?

LetterRip

[ September 07, 2006, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LetterRip,
I can think of a few theories that to me have holes in them ...

I have not been sold on the idea that fossils can only be made over a long period of time. I think that conditions are more important in their creation rather than length of time. An example for this is the hat that was found in Tasmania at a mine, that was submerged in water and had completely fossilized.

I am not fully sold on the idea that dinosaurs were extinct before man came on the scene. I wonder this because of artwork of animals that were thought to have been extinct before man arrived, have been found on cave walls. I also think of the American Indians Thunderbird or the Behemoth or Leviathan from the Bible.

The fact that there are scientists who disagree on so many things also makes me wonder.

There are more things that I have read that makes me question scientific theories... but these are a couple off the top of my head.

And,I am not saying that none of these theories are right... they are just suspect to me. I don't really have a dog in the fight so I am fine with any of these concepts... I just have not read enough information that proves them to me.

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
An example for this is the hat that was found in Tasmania at a mine, that was submerged in water and had completely fossilized.
I tried to look this up, but the only references were on a few creationist web sites. What kind of analysis was done on the hat? Does it resemble the fossils that are believed to be thousands or millions or years old in any manner other than "It's rock hard"? Scientists (and I, for that matter) don't contest that fossils can form rapidly. Different types of rock formations take different amounts of time to form. I suspect that the hat is merely encrusted with hard minerals that precipitated out of the water in which it was found. Basically, the same process that you see with the "Magic Rocks" product you find in toy stores.

Do you believe that anecdotes like this are sufficient to raise serious doubt about the validity of the the concensus opinion of the scientific community?

Lacking specialized skill in a particular field, I will tend to defer to someone who has said skill. That's why I go to a doctor when I'm sick. When the majority of those that dedicate their lives to a relavent field agree on the nature of, um, nature, I tend to accept their conclusions absent compelling evidence to the contrary. An anecdote about a fossilized hat in Tasmania is not compelling, though a thorough analysis of said hat showing that it has a structure sufficiently similar to fossils dated to 100,000 years ago such that it cannot be differenciated from them, would be compelling. Otherwise I'm just going to lump it into the endless pile of debunked claims made by creation "scientists".

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
An example for this is the hat that was found in Tasmania at a mine, that was submerged in water and had completely fossilized.
I tried to look this up, but the only references were on a few creationist web sites. What kind of analysis was done on the hat? Does it resemble the fossils that are believed to be thousands or millions or years old in any manner other than "It's rock hard"? Scientists (and I, for that matter) don't contest that fossils can form rapidly. Different types of rock formations take different amounts of time to form. I suspect that the hat is merely encrusted with hard minerals that precipitated out of the water in which it was found. Basically, the same process that you see with the "Magic Rocks" product you find in toy stores.

Do you believe that anecdotes like this are sufficient to raise serious doubt about the validity of the the concensus opinion of the scientific community?

Lacking specialized skill in a particular field, I will tend to defer to someone who has said skill. That's why I go to a doctor when I'm sick. When the majority of those that dedicate their lives to a relavent field agree on the nature of, um, nature, I tend to accept their conclusions absent compelling evidence to the contrary. An anecdote about a fossilized hat in Tasmania is not compelling, though a thorough analysis of said hat showing that it has a structure sufficiently similar to fossils dated to 100,000 years ago such that it cannot be differenciated from them, would be compelling. Otherwise I'm just going to lump it into the endless pile of debunked claims made by creation "scientists".

I am going to be 50 this month and I have read a lot of things in my lifetime. The sum of which to this day have left me unsure of certain theories.

Also.... When I am sick I also go to a doctor, but if I was fighting something that could shake the foundations of my life, I would have to know enough about the subject myself in order to choose a course of action.

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am going to be 50 this month and I have read a lot of things in my lifetime. The sum of which to this day have left me unsure of certain theories.
I'm curious about what other data points you have to doubt, for instance, the current theories of evolution and geological history. This hat example you've given has no apparent scientific support and, like your oil story, only appears to be supported by laymen with opinions or agendas rather than an experts in the relavent fields.

If the other data points in the "lot of things" you've read are similarly unsupported, then how can they inform such uncertainty? 10,000 zeros would still result in a sum of zero.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you are asking me to provide in words all the information I have inside my head and give scientific evidence tho back everything up. I am sorry but having your approbation is not that important to me.

I would rather take the time to write articles or books about things that really matter. See... I don't mind if you think I am foolish. I am pretty secure in myself.

You believe what you want, I will believe what I want... and we can both go on with our lives being perfectly happy about it. [Smile]

[ September 07, 2006, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: winkey151 ]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wasn't suggesting that you're beliefs need my approval; rather that I'm curious about what data informs such beliefs.

I'm somewhat obsessed with being right. By this, I don't mean that I feel compelled to prove that my current knowledge is correct; but that I want to make sure that my opinions of the physical world are well supported by the available evidence. To the extent that someone holds different views than mine and claims that the evidence supports those views, I'm interested in that evidence.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Matt,
OK then... As I come across articles I have stored away, I will shoot them over to you.

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1