PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[lomiller]

Just spotted this.

When I was at secondary school, the Bessemer process was a means of making mild steel in a blast furnace.

I fail to see how that would be helpful in converting coal to oil.

he probably means Bergius process, it's one of a couple ways to make synthetic oil out of coal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

In terms of climate change widespread adoption of Coal liquefaction represents pretty much the worst case mass extinction scenario

 

[jimbob]

he probably means Bergius process, it's one of a couple ways to make synthetic oil out of coal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

In terms of climate change widespread adoption of Coal liquefaction represents pretty much the worst case mass extinction scenario

Thanks for that...

And yes, I'd certainly agree with your observation about the carbon dioxide release for such an energy intensive process.

 

[Muldur]

Can't tell you how relieved I am to hear that the "growing evidence" for abiotic oil has now graduated to "proof".

So there's one less thing to worry about.

I provided the link to the paper in my post.

 

[Muldur]

Utter twaddle. For Israel to be sitting on a Saudi-size reserve, the entire country would have to be sitting on an oilfield. Israel has some untapped oil reserves, but most of it is in shales (much worse EROEI) and the total amount is nowhere near the amount Saudi started with.

http://oilsandstruth.org/index.php?q=can-israeli-oil-shale-outsize-saudi-arabia

http://www.bustanqaraaqa.org/al3/web/news/show/id/190.html

http://www.investorplace.com/2011/04/israel-shale-oil-leviathan-field-crude/

There's 3 links to the story right there for you.

 

[Muldur]

he probably means Bergius process, it's one of a couple ways to make synthetic oil out of coal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

I stand corrected on the name.

In terms of climate change widespread adoption of Coal liquefaction represents pretty much the worst case mass extinction scenario

Neo-Druid/Gaia-ist nonsense. The technology will improve as we gain experience with it. And we MUST have that oil.

 

[Dymanic]

I provided the link to the paper in my post.

After accepting everything you found there at face value, apparently, starting with the title: "Scientists Prove Abiotic Oil Is Real!" What's that, proof by hyperlink? So if I could dredge up a link to an article titled "Scientists Prove Stonehenge Was Built By Ancient Astronauts!", you'd soon be shouting that one from the rooftops as well?

Give a little more thought to this quote from your link:

This theory was developed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, as the Union needed to be self sufficient in terms of producing its own energy.

And then, if you'd like to learn why the abiotic oil hypothesis was abandoned decades ago, set aside the pop-sci garbage long enough to read this:
http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

 

[lomiller]

I stand corrected on the name.



Neo-Druid/Gaia-ist nonsense.

So NASA’s chief climate scientist is a “neo-druid”?

I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.

This of course goes a long way past mass extinction and all the way into “earth is no longer a planet on which life can exist”. A mere mass extinction would be a happy result in comparisons.

 

[ThunderChunky]

'2015: End of the Oil Age
Consensus Grows for Looming Peak'

So doomsday got pushed back to 2015 now?

 

[Dymanic]

So doomsday got pushed back to 2015 now?

Once again we see an attempt to poison the well with the use of the word, "doomsday". It's a quick and cheap alternative to presenting actual arguments and researching the facts to back them up. Once things have been couched in "doomsday" terms, even the most highly qualified petroleum geologist or oil industry analyst becomes a "doomsayer" and "fearmonger" if his predictions do not place him among the dwindling number who do not anticipate global oil production to peak for some decades.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Once again we see an attempt to poison the well with the use of the word, "doomsday". It's a quick and cheap alternative to presenting actual arguments and researching the facts to back them up. Once things have been couched in "doomsday" terms, even the most highly qualified petroleum geologist or oil industry analyst becomes a "doomsayer" and "fearmonger" if his predictions do not place him among the dwindling number who do not anticipate global oil production to peak for some decades.

I debated peak oil doomers back in 2002. Back then 2007 was the doomsday deadline....then 2009, then 2012...now 2015? I don't know when peakoil will occur, it's not really relevant to my point. I know doomers though, I have nearly a decade of experience with them and their song hasn't changed.

 

[Dymanic]

I debated peak oil doomers back in 2002. Back then 2007 was the doomsday deadline....then 2009, then 2012...now 2015? I don't know when peakoil will occur, it's not really relevant to my point. I know doomers though, I have nearly a decade of experience with them and their song hasn't changed.

Well, I don't know about doomsday, but that's not really relevant to my point. As to the timing of peak oil, the production numbers seem to indicate that the prediction of 2007 may turn out to have been off by a year or two (late, that is):