Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Additionally, that link to the power point is hosted on a really crap website. You're going to have to scroll down past the stupid ads, press download, enter a useless code, and press download again. I need to find something better than file factory no doubt.

At 2/28/08 09:36 PM, Noolie wrote: So what do you guys think about peak oil? Our history teacher just went over it today in class and I think its dumb. I mean why can't we just drill deeper to get more oil? The US has enough barred oil to keep us going for like a thousand years.

Look Noolie, it doesn't work like that. There is only so much oil in the world (about 2 trillion barrels worth) and we used about half of that (some where in the rage of 900 billion barrels). Digging down deep won't get us more oil simply because there isn't any down that far.

As it currently stand we are in peak oil, more then half the worlds land based oil supplies have been used up, and the oceanic oil supplies will be half used but by around 2015 at the latest. That's what peak oil is, we excused half the world supply, and if you model production as a smooth Gaussian our out put should begin decreasing as fast as they increased; However it not likely to happen that way due to that fact that we're extracting oil at a faster rate then before, hens the sudden collapse as was show in Adam's graph.

At 2/28/08 10:12 PM, Noolie wrote: I do know what I'm talking about, and my science teacher even said that there was more oil under the ground then we know what to do with! Look at the Russians there drilling 5 miles under the earth and pulling up oil! How could that happen if there wasn't more of it down there? And don't try and tell me oils made from plants and dinosaurs! That theory was proven wrong decades ago!!!

The your "science" teacher is a moron. Well no that's not fair, but at the very lest they don't know jack about geology. Wouldn't be surprised really, most science teachers in today's schools don't have science degrees.

Anyway the comment about the Russians is bull. There are no wells that have ever been drilled below the fossil line for there respective areas. It is true that some fossil lines are very deep, but that's due to subduction zones on or similar geological anomaly. That's kind of like what happened at Eugene Island (note, I provide this wiki link for your benefit if you have misgivings about the material on I will be happy to link you to a few scholarly articles on it instead).

As for the Russians, I'm not aware of any oil well that has gone down as far as you claim. Thought there is a bore hole the Russians made that goes down a good 42 thousand feet or so, that's not an oil well.

Oh and one last thing Noolie, claim down. Shouting on a forum and acting like a child will only get you insults and may you look dumb, which I'm confident your not.

At 2/29/08 08:22 PM, PubicTears wrote: A pretty cool website! Check it out its about the "Oil Peak".
http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm
Im not saying its 100% fact so dont tell me contact the website if you are that botherd.
Yeh, so check it out, really good site.

Wow I actually lost IQ points from reading that. Seriously where the hell did you find it? I've never seen so much pseudoscience in one place before, it's as bad as a creationist web site (well ok maybe not that bad :p).

At 2/29/08 10:14 PM, AdamRice wrote: Most charismatic prof. I've ever met, real great guy.

Oh well, i'm convinced then. Fuck the science.

Generally speaking, we're burning oil a lot faster than it is produced. This means that it will run out eventually, whether you like it or not.

"Drilling deeper" is not a solution, as the earth is a sphere, not a planar surface resting upon a geologic column of infinite depth.

gas is not a fossil fuel it's A biotic

http://www.spacescan.org/entry/methane-o n-titan-is-abiotic-it-contradicts-fossil -fuel-theory/
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=38645

and as to the pricing on gas, its all determined by speculation. people constantly in fear that we'll run out.

the reason we don't drill for oil in the U.S is because the environmental groups wont let us. They don't want us to damage the pristine beauty of the planet.

w/e

Hey, Sp10x it looks like where the only smart ones on this board!

At 3/1/08 05:39 PM, Sp10x wrote: gas is not a fossil fuel it's A biotic

Biotic? So oil is caused by living organisms? Living organisms that died and became oil? Think about what you're posting.

http://www.spacescan.org/entry/methane-o n-titan-is-abiotic-it-contradicts-fossil -fuel-theory/
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=38645

and as to the pricing on gas, its all determined by speculation. people constantly in fear that we'll run out.

People constantly fear the greed of those countries providing us with that oil.

the reason we don't drill for oil in the U.S is because the environmental groups wont let us. They don't want us to damage the pristine beauty of the planet.

w/e

It's a fossile fuel, the only thing the second link says is that possibly not ALL oil is fossile fuel, not none, just not all, but we've known that for a while.

You are right, however, about the hippie enviromental groups and special interests that block off-shore drilling in this country.

So if oil comes from dinosaurs, then why is there so much of it? How could it all have formed if it was just dead animals? And how come the russians found oil down so far in the ground?

At 3/3/08 01:08 PM, Noolie wrote: So if oil comes from dinosaurs, then why is there so much of it? How could it all have formed if it was just dead animals?

Because there were many dead animals back millions of years ago. Animals kinda die when a meteor impacts the earth,

At 3/3/08 02:31 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Because there were many dead animals back millions of years ago. Animals kinda die when a meteor impacts the earth,

well technically its not from dead dinosaurs. (lots of stuff collects at the bottom of the seas)

Oil isnt going to run out anytime soon. The problem comes in the production costs which are heightened the deeper you drill.

Theres also the developments in Oil Shale which was previously seen as unprocessable. The USA has more shale than the total estimated quantity of oil left in the world.

lol, america got a very limited amount of oil in barrels and some more in their soil.....and all over the world the demand for oil grows bigger every day...(China and India are good examples).
most experts says in this rate oil will run out in like 20-40 yrs from now, maybe even faster....

At 3/3/08 04:30 PM, kamil-fucker wrote:
most experts says in this rate oil will run out in like 20-40 yrs from now, maybe even faster....

Not at all, like I said America have more Shale than the rest of the world has oil, on top of that we are entering the Age of LNG.

Although speculating an early end to oil does allow the price to be hiked up, but its not like the Oil Majors are money hungry or anything......

At 3/3/08 02:43 PM, DingoTheDog wrote: Oil isnt going to run out anytime soon. The problem comes in the production costs which are heightened the deeper you drill.

We aren't talking about running out, so much as dwindling production and rapidly rising cost. We are however at the peak of oil production, and you really can't argue that.

Theres also the developments in Oil Shale which was previously seen as unprocessable. The USA has more shale than the total estimated quantity of oil left in the world.

Oil shale is difficult to mine, expensive, extremely damaging environmentally, and has a very high refining cost in both energy and money. There have been some recent developments but that's not going to change things much. Oil shale isn't even oil, it's a mixture of dry and semi-wet hydrocarbons, which can be refined into an oil like substance that is very high in sulfurs and salt. Which makes it's use as an oil replacement unacceptable, and can not be used as a substitute for gasoline.

At 3/3/08 05:03 PM, DingoTheDog wrote:

At 3/3/08 04:30 PM, kamil-fucker wrote:
most experts says in this rate oil will run out in like 20-40 yrs from now, maybe even faster....

Not at all, like I said America have more Shale than the rest of the world has oil, on top of that we are entering the Age of LNG.

Shale isn't oil, and natural gas will peak in 20-30 years at the current rate of use. If we factor in replacement of oil with LNG the peak could come as soon as 10 years. Not to mention the price of natural gas would make this very cost prohibitive.

Although speculating an early end to oil does allow the price to be hiked up, but its not like the Oil Majors are money hungry or anything......

And that's a red herring.

At 3/4/08 08:33 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Oil shale is difficult to mine, expensive, extremely damaging environmentally, and has a very high refining cost in both energy and money. There have been some recent developments but that's not going to change things much. Oil shale isn't even oil, it's a mixture of dry and semi-wet hydrocarbons, which can be refined into an oil like substance that is very high in sulfurs and salt. Which makes it's use as an oil replacement unacceptable, and can not be used as a substitute for gasoline.

2009 seems to be the date that the fate of planned shale production methods will be determined. The product from this shale production is supposedly a very good grade of crude and they believe it will come in at $30 a barrel

At 3/5/08 01:28 PM, DingoTheDog wrote:

At 3/4/08 08:33 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Oil shale is difficult to mine, expensive, extremely damaging environmentally, and has a very high refining cost in both energy and money. There have been some recent developments but that's not going to change things much. Oil shale isn't even oil, it's a mixture of dry and semi-wet hydrocarbons, which can be refined into an oil like substance that is very high in sulfurs and salt. Which makes it's use as an oil replacement unacceptable, and can not be used as a substitute for gasoline.

2009 seems to be the date that the fate of planned shale production methods will be determined. The product from this shale production is supposedly a very good grade of crude and they believe it will come in at $30 a barrel

Um, no. First off your link says nothing definite and reads like marketing trash. As far as I know there have been no major break through which would allow for oil from shale production at less then $80 a barrel; that your article claims $30 is out right ludicrous, especially when you consider the massive energy cost required to do what they're proposing. Do you know how much energy is required to heat even a cubic meter of rock to 700*C? Let alone keeping it heated for four years.

Which brings me to my second point; you can't just add heat to shale and produce oil. At lest not in a short time span. There's a reason why it takes thousands of years to go from shale to oil, there are many different chemical reactions which must take place, and must take place slowly. You can't just rapidly heat the stuff ether, the 700-1300*C they mention in the article will destroy the shale, and severely limit oil production to the point where they may not produce any at all. There is no indication that they have solved any of the impurity problems (i.e. high sulfur content, large amounts of nitrates, slats, etc...) ether.

I'm sorry but your link is bunk. Bring be a research article or something which explains how they over come these fundamental problems and I'll believe you.

Actually my dad has sevral hundred shares of stock in this corporation, and he thinks it's going to go through the roof in a few months!

At 3/5/08 08:23 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: Do you know how much energy is required to heat even a cubic meter of rock to 700*C? Let alone keeping it heated for four years.

I'm willing to say "not a bunch"

The 700 Fahrenheit mentioned in the article is roughly 371 C, so we'll guesstimate that they're jacking the temperature up by about 350K

I'll assume that since oil shale has a bunch of organic crap in it, it behaves roughly like limestone (Note: You should check me on this one)

Limestone has a heat capacity of 0.84 kJ/kg K, which we'll assume is fairly constant because rocks are solid.

At a density of about 2500 kg/m^3, that gives us:

H = (0.84)(2500)(350)
= 735 MJ of energy. This translates to about 204 kWh, or about $16.50 worth of energy.

For a large scale industrial process that has been running for some time, $30 a barrel is not an unreasonable estimate.

Does this mean that continued reliance on oil as an energy source is a good idea? No, but it could be done if we had to.