Occams Razor is a rule of science nimrod, it ranks right up there with "correlation does not equal causation".
Wrong. It's a maxim, one that refers to a best guess based on induction and pragmatism. A RULE would be something concrete and irrefutable, not something that refers to tendency.
Ironically, Occam's Razor would be far more in my corner on this overall debate, considering no one knows where future oil is going to come from in the amounts required to sustain our paradigm. The simplest answer, obviously, is that because most nations are past peak (fact), the stuff is gonna be much harder and more expensive to find (logic). That's Occam's Razor. That's the simplest answer.
Eugene Island is not a singular event either, Mexican Hat recharges on average every 20 years or so. It is a small field so internet "experts" will have never heard of it. You may have heard of the Aneth oil field however, and it too has exhibited some recharge.
Great. And 60-yard field goals can occasionally be successful in the NFL, but you don't see teams structure their strategy based on the assumption of their extremely rare success.
Your smarmy condescension aside, you're not dealing with a mere "internet expert" here, ok self-asserted "scientist?" I'm not here to crow about what I do for a living, but let's just say that I can tell from our brief exchange that I know more about global flow rates, proven reserve totals and demand growth than you do, or just more than you're willing to be honest about.
You're going to need to link to support your claim. Pointing to a few tiny fields that may have "recharged" a few days worth of energy at current consumption rates over 10-20 years is hardly axiomatic of the overall process of crude origin, and far more evidence exists that we are past the halfway point. How much "recharged?" Point to a single field that "recharged" more than a billion or so barrels? Heck, how bout 50 million barrels? It doesn't happen. Period. But I'm sure you're very anxious for that to be the case, so I'm all ears, bring it on.
You entered the discussion with pointless insults with your baseless "peak is a myth... duh!" rant, so you earned it. Anyhow, scientist, let's paraphrase the basic laws of thermodynamics, and then you can tell us how they're somehow irrelevant to the overall energy discussion being covered here (admittedly, the third and or zeroth laws are irrelevant):
1st law: energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained.
in other words - you can not get something for nothing... (and "something for nothing" is the platform that abiotic theorists DEPEND upon)
2nd law: Otherwise known as the law of entropy. In all energies exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy state will always wind up being less than the original state.
in other words - entropy always increases as the process goes along, and you can never break even. Along those lines, Peak deniers have little-to-no grasp of EROEI, and seldom factor in the energy required to even get at, extract, refine and deliever the energy being sought.
So there are two LAWS that people must always ask themselves when considering alternatives, or in your case, a mandate to "Just drill deeper!" Occam's Razor is not.
There are no replacements for what easy-to-extract, light crude has provided complex societies. We are where we are today (empire) because of it, and now all the low-hanging fruit has been picked.
Yeah, I'd say that's quite relevant.
irony
Right, and what are they saying today about oil fields "refilling?" How common is it, exactly, and in what proven, recoverable amount? Where? Obviously you're awesome, as you've proclaimed, so this should be easy for you to produce. What is their "consensus" regarding your theory that a few tiny fields have "filled back up" a bit?
As far as drilling another hole in the middle of nowhere, yes that is exactly what I would like to see. Instead of pissing a million dollars down the rathole of whatever pointless environmental research you choose to name I would like to see some much more solid research done on a whole host of scientific endeavors. I am a geologist, I actually have worked in the field for 35 years.
Then you must be among the most irresponsible scientist in the history of man. I'm sure Big Oil would sprint to hire guys like you who advocate they blindly drill in the middle of no where. To heck with the costs, right? "It's GOTTA be down there! Look at Eugene Island and Mexican Hat?"
Surely it's all a big conspiracy against the oil giants, because they're somehow NOT just poking holes all over the Earth and hoping for the best, like you'd advocate. Must be liberal agenda hampering their blind ambition, not the USGS or anything.
You insult people and "talk" about science....I DO science.
LOL... Get over yourself. You could say you're Thomas Gold himself, if you like. Doesn't do much for this discussion. Based on what you've offered in this exchange, I'm gonna call bullshit. Perhaps you're a rig operator who knows more than your bosses, like the men in the video I provided, who all confirm peak is here.
Either way, scientist, you're still pretending you know more than those behind decades of innovation and know-how, and that they are all just somehow keeping the oil from us by not drilling wildly everywhere. Good one.
Ultimately, you've been challenged to prove where the oil is going forward to meet our 86 million barrel per day appetite (and growing, via developing Asian nations), and the best you've come up with is to suggest a few tiny fields have shown tiny reserve growth, oil must then be abiotic, and we should insist that Big Oil go bankrupt drilling everywhere and hope for the best.
Fail.
Hope is not a policy. And hope will not be used to set the domestic energy agenda, no matter how much money you (print up and) throw at the problem.
One last time... Where is the oil, going forward? How much? At what cost? Heck, guesstimate the costs... Just tell the forum where the oil is? I'm sure Chevron, BP, Exxon, Total and all the others would kill to know. ... Because they don't seem to be buying your tired claim that the fields are all "refilling" on their own.
