Petroleum Is Infinite In Quantity

[achillea]

https://anticorruptionsociety.files...ming-preponderance-of-geological-evidence.pdf

Just another case of Russian Science not being constrained by western profit just like Ray Peat says.

 

[3ball]

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.

 

[achillea]

I have no idea what you are saying and am sorry that you feel as you do.
So much of what we are studying on the forum is based on Russian science.
They have proven that oil is limitless in quantity which is great. There was another American scientist, an ,Astro geophysicist named Goldman who took his knowledge of other planet geology and applied it to earth and came out with the same conclusions as the Russians. His deal was now that we know it is limitless let's use it safely and environmentally responsibly. We could have cars that run on gas that costs $.03 per gallon and the exhaust could be water vapor if we put science to it rather than money and corporate greed, just like in medicine.
Also I put this under Political talks and conspiracy to keep it out of the realm of health

 

[Hugh Johnson]

That's like introduction to some ancient hypotheses with no apparent evidence. Besides, finite planet=finite resources.

That's all just cornucopian faith.

 

[Such_Saturation]

The Sun is also finite...

 

[DaveFoster]

It doesn't matter if oil is finite; the market will preserve oil in such a way as to raise the price and thus encourage rapid investment into alternative energy sources.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

If it's true that oil is made from the Earth and not from decaying organisms, doesn't that make it even more important to preserve? Maybe it has geological functions in the crust and when removed it could cause instability. There's simply no conceivable way oil could be distributed for 3 cents a gallon today. It is more expensive today mainly because the supply of currency has increased dramatically. To me, it's a wonder that something consumed so insatiably by the whole world is still so cheap. To me there is no way to make the sucking out of the ground, intense chemical refining, then inefficient combustion of petroleum could ever be environmentally friendly, not to mention the harm done by plastics. The whole world is moving to more advanced and pure forms of energy, chemical explosions will be a thing of the past soon. BTW Russia's economy is very dependent on petroleum, and a lot of Russian oligarchs stand to lose everything when we shift away from petroleum, so I'm not surprised to see this crap "science" come from Russia.

 

[Such_Saturation]

a lot of Russian oligarchs stand to lose everything when we shift away from petroleum, so I'm not surprised to see this

Wouldn't it surprise you equally to see them claim there is little oil left, so they can raise prices?

 

[jaguar43]

It doesn't matter if oil is finite; the market will preserve oil in such a way as to raise the price and thus encourage rapid investment into alternative energy sources.

Many of those alternatives have been here for years ( ray peat spoke about wind power in his book mind and tissue briefly). The "market" won't be much help for new ideas, because banks and creditors aren't interested in lending money for risky businesses endeavors. James watts never got any money from the banks to start the steam engine, he had to borrow from friends. That is why banks need to be part of the public domain to reduce speculation. Which is what Lincoln proposed.

 

[achillea]

If it's true that oil is made from the Earth and not from decaying organisms, doesn't that make it even more important to preserve? Maybe it has geological functions in the crust and when removed it could cause instability. There's simply no conceivable way oil could be distributed for 3 cents a gallon today. It is more expensive today mainly because the supply of currency has increased dramatically. To me, it's a wonder that something consumed so insatiably by the whole world is still so cheap. To me there is no way to make the sucking out of the ground, intense chemical refining, then inefficient combustion of petroleum could ever be environmentally friendly, not to mention the harm done by plastics. The whole world is moving to more advanced and pure forms of energy, chemical explosions will be a thing of the past soon. BTW Russia's economy is very dependent on petroleum, and a lot of Russian oligarchs stand to lose everything when we shift away from petroleum, so I'm not surprised to see this crap "science" come from Russia.

Guess with that logic we might as well stop using water.

 

[DaveFoster]

Many of those alternatives have been here for years ( ray peat spoke about wind power in his book mind and tissue briefly). The "market" won't be much help for new ideas, because banks and creditors aren't interested in lending money for risky businesses endeavors. James watts never got any money from the banks to start the steam engine, he had to borrow from friends. That is why banks need to be part of the public domain to reduce speculation. Which is what Lincoln proposed.

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

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Wouldn't it surprise you equally to see them claim there is little oil left, so they can raise prices?

Star Wars quote : "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"
I agree with you and I'm sure they would try that if they had a global monopoly, but even then, oil would still need to be reasonably affordable for everyone to use or there will be development of alternate means of transport. At this point, there are affordable electric cars, and solar panels actually make financial sense in sunny areas, so this dumb science to me is the energy industry propoganda telling people "you don't have to change, petroleum can be affordable indefinetely." This is a last ditch effort to sway investment away from any advanced infrastructure, like the hyperloop for example. Going off petroleum is a huge change for the whole world, and it's going to be hugely disruptive, especially for wealthy investors, as there are trillions of dollars worth of petroleum infrastructure around the world that is going to be made largely obsolete. There will still be gasoline and plastic, but I'd say in fifty years most transportation will have advanced beyond gasoline.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

And it's about **** time, seeing as hyperloop technology has really been around for 80 years, and electric cars more than a 100 years. 150 year old trains are probably just as, if not more, efficient a means of transport than gas powered cars.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Good point although it's from 1996, published in London and made by an American and Hyperloop is taking lots of effort by a large number of engineers.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Yeah, but the real question for the hyperloop is where the investment will come from. If it is private, they might have a hard time using eminent domain to get the land, and might have a hard time actually generating a profit, not to mention all the inevitable red tape from gov't sponsored by lobbyists from the good ol petrol industry. If it is public, then we can expect it to be massively over budget and beyond on-time, but historically public investment is the best way to pioneer a big project. A public-private partnership could be the best way, or the worst. I think the engineering is the least complicated part, think big pneumatic tube.

 

[tara]

Besides, finite planet=finite resources.

Yes.

The Sun is also finite...

Yes, but current estimates predict that it will continue to radiate Earth with more sunlight than we are currently usefully harnessing for a very long time into the future, whereas the existing fossil fuels are effectively not replenished at all.
There is room for debate about whether we have already passed peak oil, and how much longer the existing stocks can last, influenced partly by estimates about how much already exists, as well as how much environmental damage people will accept in exchange for continuing to extract the increasingly less accessible stocks.

It doesn't matter if oil is finite; the market will preserve oil in such a way as to raise the price and thus encourage rapid investment into alternative energy sources.

Such faith in 'the market'. There might be a case for this view if the legislative and political framework prevented the industries profiting from fossil fuel extraction from externalising most of the costs of damage. We are a long way from having such a system, though there are people working for it.

They have proven that oil is limitless in quantity which is great.

They have proven no such thing. I have not read the report, but there is no possibility that they could prove such a thing consistent with basic uncontroversial physics.

If it's true that oil is made from the Earth and not from decaying organisms, doesn't that make it even more important to preserve? Maybe it has geological functions in the crust and when removed it could cause instability.

Whatever the origins of fossil fuels, there are already serious concern about the instability created by fracking. Not something I would want to play with in earthquake zones, not to mention ground and water contamination.

To me there is no way to make the sucking out of the ground, intense chemical refining, then inefficient combustion of petroleum could ever be environmentally friendly, not to mention the harm done by plastics.

I'm with you on that.

Many of those alternatives have been here for years ( ray peat spoke about wind power in his book mind and tissue briefly). The "market" won't be much help for new ideas, because banks and creditors aren't interested in lending money for risky businesses endeavors. James watts never got any money from the banks to start the steam engine, he had to borrow from friends. That is why banks need to be part of the public domain to reduce speculation. Which is what Lincoln proposed.

Yeah.

Guess with that logic we might as well stop using water.

Being thoughtful about how we use of freshwater would be very wise. There are places where access to scarce fresh water is a major cause for conflict. Climate change has been exaserbating this severely in some places - eg some glaciers that communities have relied on for fresh water for hundred or thousands of years have been melting away lately.

I'd say there are several major differences between using water and using fossil fuels, though.
Water does have a cycle that brings it round again, so we can expect a continuing supply of new precipitation, even if it's distribution over the Earth changes it's pattern. Not so with fossil fuels, at least on a relevant human scale.
Water can be and is contaminated to a point where it is not much human use, but it is not permanently destroyed by most uses.
Humans evolved and can (if organised appropriately) live without using fossil fuels. Water is obviously essential to human (and much other) life.

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.

I understand your concern. Claims like infinite petroleum seem up there with complete denial of a roundish Earth, evolution, climate change, and the existence or relevance of infections microorganisms.
I would tend to take these as small minority views, not representative of all on forum.

As to the credibility of the physiology information here, one of the things I respect about Peat is that he usually points to his references or other reasons for his views, so you can have a chance to assess them yourself. But I would not just blindly accept any particular statement you read on this forum about what would be healthy without assessing for yourself if it seems to line up with the evidence. There are a lot of opinions and a lot of disagreements expressed here.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

I believe free markets regulate themselves. People always point to the whole story about the Chicago stock yards and the book "The Jungle" and say we need the gov't to regulate everything. Well the writing of that book was a free market private endeavor and that one book caused everyone to demand change from the stock yards... problem solved. Then the FDA came in after that and look at what they have done to the food and drug industries in America. The FDA is a one stop shop for bribes. All a company has to do is get all the important officials there bribed, then they can pass regulations that cause their competition to go out of business. These alphabet soup agencies like the FDA allow big business to thrive while the small guys get squeeze, and we all end up suffering. I think it was in 2001, George Bush made a speech saying every American should own a home... then look what happened... and now their are so many rediculous regulations that there are no small or medium banks at all, just a few gigantic monstrosities that don't give anyone interest on the deposits and get bailed out etc.

 

[achillea]

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.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

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...

 

[tara]

I believe free markets regulate themselves.

This seems to me to a faith-based belief. It is not borne out by the evidence.

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.

On the contrary - a good chunk of the environmental movement says that we cannot afford to even use most of the remaining fossil fuel stocks for at least three reasons:
1. Extraction would result in result in intolerable destruction of natural and food-producing environments.
2. Combustion would result in intolerable increases in GHGs and therefore anthropogenic climate change, and some say it could increase the risk of irreversible tipping points (causing even more massive extinctions etc).
3. Their combustion and other uses result in various kinds of poisoning of our (and other species') habitat, with associated degradation in health.

None of these problems would be solved by the unlikely appearance of unlimited petroleum.