"Peak Oil" is a myth perpetrated by the very oil companies you claim are trying to prevent technological innovation to get us off of fossil fuels. The reason why they perpetuate the myth is to drive prices up. Duh! Internal memo's were released a few years ago that provided ample evidence of this.
That's quite a statement. Why don't you provide that link, rather than insist we trust your claim on face value. What context? I'll put even money that your "ample evidence" is completely irrelevant when it comes to global flow rates. This is always the case.
Your camp constantly cites mole hills in order to assert the condition of mountains, ... rinse repeat. It's what you do.
I look forward to your link of this "internal memo", and putting it in proper perspective. Prices get "driven up" for a lot of things. That does nothing to dispel the basic math of overall resource depletion. Zero.
Added to that are the well known discoveries of oil fields that are recharging, such as the Eugene Island 330 field wich began producing 15k barrels of oil per day with reserves of 60 million barrels and subsequently dropped to 4k barrels per day then quite literally overnight began producing 13k barrels per day and the reserve jumped to 400 million barrels. It was also found that the new oil was a different geologic period.
And here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about above. It's always funny watching abiotic advocates squawk about ONE pool containing 5 days worth of energy, suddenly experiencing a brief uptick as a result of fault migration, as evidence that ALL global fields just magically fill up. It's sorta like when they pretend climate change is a myth because of a New England snow storm in late April. Unfortunately, after a very short increase, that tiny pool is still dying... rapidly. Like most of the rest. .... We find 1 new barrel for every 4 we consume today. That's a problem, and won't last much longer.
Here's Richard Heinberg crushing the tired old Eugene Island claim, as he always does with "reserve growth" claims:
The ?Abiotic Oil? Controversy | Energy Bulletin
While it is true that the estimated oil reserves of Eugene have increased, the numbers are not extraordinary. The authors note that “From 1978 to 1988, these operations, activities, and natural factors [including better exploration and recovery technology] have increased ultimate recoverable reserves from 225 million bbl to 307 million bbl of hydrocarbon liquids and from 950 bcf to 1.65 tcf of gas.” Other estimates now put the estimate of total recoverable oil as high as 400 Mb.
None of this is especially unusual for a North American oil field: most fields report reserve growth over time as a consequence of Securities and Exchange Commission reporting rules that require reserves to be booked yearly according to what portion of the resource is actually able to be extracted with current equipment in place. As more wells are drilled into the same reservoir, the reserves “grow.” Then, as they are pumped out, reserves decline and production rates dwindle. No magic there.
Do better.
The Middle East has more than DOUBLED its reserves in the last 20 years despite the fact that there has been a 50 year period of intense exploitation.
OPEC: "What? You're buying elsewhere? Suddenly, we have lots more oil!"
People like you: "Good enough for me! Where do we sign?"
OPEC nations sell their oil according to quotas, which are based partially on their reported reserves. The more reserves a nation reports, the more oil it is allowed to sell. This particular quota system went into effect in the 1980s, and almost immediately all OPEC nations’ oil reserves jumped significantly. These nations have a direct, vested interest in exaggerating their reserves, not only to make more money, but because petroleum income directly translates into regional power.
Gosh, look at those sudden vertical jumps, in succession, by OPEC nations in the 1980s? Sure looks like an accounting gimmick to me.
In addition, adding tens of billions to reserve totals because you believe dirty, heavy shale and tar sands is the same as light crude is also vastly misleading. Heavy oils are not cost effective, and unlikely ever will be.
There was a man (I think his name was Gold) years ago who came up with the theory that oil was created deep underground by temperature and pressure and then percolated up to the surface where we grabbed it. There was a test hole drilled several years ago in the middle of a kraton somewhere to test the theory and they did in fact find a small amount of oil very deep. I don't recall the depth it was found but it was over 15,000 feet. This, in the middle of a continental granitic body...not in sedimentary rock.
Yeah, his name is Thomas Gold, he's the author of "The Deep Hot Biosphere," and his work has been thoroughly peer-reviewed and crushed. Welcome to the discussion with your west coast slow pony, though. Gold's irrelevant work has been covered here and put into perspective.
Finding traces of methane in the earth's core does not mean the enormous quantities of crude oil that we consume is abiotic, nor infinite, .... just like finding traces of alcohol in space doesn't mean vodka comes from the sky.
Even if the stuff IS abiotic, great! Where the 'F' is it then? The USGS and the IEA would surely love to know. As would all big oil producers and sovereign governments. Your ploy is irrelevant. We're debating peak oil, not the endless debate of how oil originates. The question remains: If there's somehow "plenty," where is it? In what amount?
Show the proven reserve data, admit global consumption rates up against the figures you think you have, and we can have a starting point for discussion. Until then, your entire platform is hope-based, and void of hard math.
ES) rose up significantly as the company reported that it had made an oil discovery at Falkland Islands. Falkland Islands is one of the territories which belongs to the United Kingdom however being claimed by Argentina. Despite losing in the war, Argentina has continued to claim Falkland Islands.
