What Happens when Oil Runs Out?

[Radrook]

Then read the first Chapter of Revelation and ask yourself when John actually said this stuff was going to start?


Dr Paul Barnet is a conservative reformed evangelical, a genuine guy with a heart for the gospel and historical accuracy of the bible. I know his children and grandchildren who are all gospel-centred people.


Does this mean you'll always hold the opinion of evangelical reformed gospel centred people who know an awful lot more than you with sheer contempt? You'll treat them like one liberal scholar you saw on TV, until proven otherwise?


In my experience sadly, many Americans who write on this forum disparage biblical scholarship and don't bother with biblical theology or systematic theology or applying themselves academically to the pursuit of biblical wisdom so they can say any darn dang old whacked out thing.


They also had God's spirit breathing out of them, 2 Tim 3:16 and all that!


Whooops! You've just proved my point. If you knew anything about history or theology, you'd know that Paul was not saying "Go with your heart and a real DUMB understanding of the bible, as long as your feelings tell you it's true, it's true!" No way! Paul was really happy with this group called the Bereans who did NOT just believe everything Paul said, but cross-checked every thing he said with the Old Testament. Paul was NOT calling academic bible study an "intellectually sophisticated thing to shame". Instead, he was attacking the worldly philosophy of the pagan Greeks. If you have any dirt on Dr Paul Barnett teaching ancient Greek philosophy, please let me know! ;-)






... woah! Bereans, Paul's commending of them was a thing.


Couldn't agree more, but that's based on other wisdom literature, not your misreading of Paul's attack of worldly Greek philosophy. But please continue.


And you know Paul Barnett's heart? Really? From over there, wherever you are?
I was careful, I read his book, and he is classical Reformation Amil.
Did you know most of the big theologians during the Reformation were Amillennial? Do you know what that term means? Probably not, because you're hyper-critical of anything 'academic' in Christianity. Tell me, what do you think Jesus meant when he said to love God with all your mind...?

eclipsenow,

Remark:

Then read the first Chapter of Revelation and ask yourself when John actually said this stuff was going to start?

Response:

No, you ask yourself that question since you seem confused.

--------------------------------------------------------

Remark:

Dr Paul Barnet is a conservative reformed evangelical, a genuine guy with a heart for the gospel and historical accuracy of the bible. I know his children and grandchildren who are all gospel-centred people.

Response

His children and grandchildren are irrelevant to what he did on that occasion. So are his credentials and his prior behavior. Maybe he was in a bad mood? Or maybe he was under temporary Satanic influence? Whatever! My evaluation of his anti-biblical commentary stands.

-------------------------------------------------

Remark:

Does this mean you'll always hold the opinion of evangelical reformed gospel centred people who know an awful lot more than you with sheer contempt? You'll treat them like one liberal scholar you saw on TV, until proven otherwise?

Response

Now you are imagining things. I don’t judge people according to denominational memberships. My criticism was restricted to that specific behavior at that specific time. Nothing more.

---------------------
Remark

In my experience sadly, many Americans who write on this forum disparage biblical scholarship and don't bother with biblical theology or systematic theology or applying themselves academically to the pursuit of biblical wisdom so they can say any darn dang old whacked out thing. They also had God's spirit breathing out of them, 2 Tim 3:16 and all that!

Response:

I have absolutely no reason to disparage the very activity I have been involved in for most of my life. That is absurd! I indeed have bothered with biblical theology up to the fanatically ridiculous point of seriously having neglected perhaps far more personally urgent aspects of my life. I also majored in history in my university studies towards my Social Science degree. Which goes to show just how far off base you are and how far you are willing to go when someone appears to disagree with you.
----------------------------

Remark:

Whooops! You've just proved my point. If you knew anything about history or theology, you'd know that Paul was not saying "Go with your heart and a real DUMB understanding of the bible, as long as your feelings tell you it's true, it's true!" No way! Paul was really happy with this group called the Bereans who did NOT just believe everything Paul said, but cross-checked every thing he said with the Old Testament. Paul was NOT calling academic bible study an "intellectually sophisticated thing to shame". Instead, he was attacking the worldly philosophy of the pagan Greeks. If you have any dirt on Dr Paul Barnett teaching ancient Greek philosophy, please let me know! ;-)

... woah! Bereans, Paul's commending of them was a thing.

Couldn't agree more, but that's based on other wisdom literature, not your misreading of Paul's attack of worldly Greek philosophy. But please continue.

Response:

I am not opposing Paul’s advice to the Bereans. Neither am I advocating a dumb mindless uncritical approach to Bible scholarship. Those are blatant lies based on your misreading of what I said and your obvious urge to garble its meaning,.

Proverbs 12:19
Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Remark:

And you know Paul Barnett's heart? Really? From over there, wherever you are?

I was careful, I read his book, and he is classical Reformation Amil.

Did you know most of the big theologians during the Reformation were Amillennial? Do you know what that term means? Probably not, because you're hyper-critical of anything 'academic' in Christianity. Tell me, what do you think Jesus meant when he said to love God with all your mind...?

Response:

The only one who knows the heart of each of us and can render judgment accordingly is God. I simply described what I saw and what I felt when I saw it. Anything beyond that is based on your imagination as are your intentionally barbed assumptions of abysmal ignorance.


BTW

Your fanatical defense of this clergyman does not nullify the overwhelming evidence that those who are theologically supposedly superior to the common people have been the most hypocritical in representing Christianity and the most reprehensible in God's eyes because as shepherds they have misled the flock into total spiritual ruin. No amount of sycophantic adulation bordering on idolatry can ever change that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Such ignorance seems to give them the impression that our present way of life which depends on the depletion of oil which is non-renewable is a permanent condition when it is indeed a temporary one soon to come to a sudden end with disastrous consequences unless we take precautionary action now.

Like pray?

1 Kings 17:14 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the LORD sendeth rain upon the earth.

 

[Radrook]

Like pray?

1 Kings 17:14 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the LORD sendeth rain upon the earth.

Reminds me of what happened in to Jonah in reference to Nineveh.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Barrel Breakdown

Interesting article, thanks.

I see it is published by WSJ so should be reliable, but I notice that they also published this:

Which Oil Producers Are Breaking Even?

And that says a lot of major oil producing countries are not breaking even under $75 a barrel. This is far higher than the price they used to need to make even. As oil becomes harder and harder to find, the price will go up.

The 100$ myth of profitability has vanished years ago....

Not according to the link I posted.

Our oil production in the US because of fracking has doubled in 8-10 years...I am gonna make a prediction that it could do the same in the next 8-10 years... But at least a 50% increase.....
But what do I know?????

I don't see how that kind of extrapolation is justified. The original boom in shale oil came as we rushed in to the best share areas after this technology became available. But what happens when we use this technology on lesser sources? Simply following the curve will not give the correct answer.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All of the concerns raised about nuclear power in this PDF should be mitigated by:-
1. Understanding that the majority of people who wrote it are issue-driven and do not have time in the nuclear industry, and those that were most qualified were actually pro-nuclear power, even pro-breeder reactor, but just concerned about adopting the least-best nuclear technologies. (See summary of nuclear experts below)

I believe the people you quote are also "issue driven". If we disqualify any expert on nuclear who has an opinon on nuclear, I suspect we would disqualify them all.

I am quite fine with experts that have opinions.

2. Reading this book which thoroughly educates about the risks of nuclear power.
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

It is interesting that you discredit a work written by mulitple experts in the field, to turn to a single work by a Tom Blees, whoever he is. What little I can find about him is not as impressive as the list of people involved in the IPFM.

I am not saying Blees is wrong. I look forward to reading his work. I am just saying that there are a whole lot of warnings about nuclear, and it would be foolish to rush headlong into this while ignoring the warnings.

Summary of 'nuclear experts'

Actually this is a summary of a few of the experts. There were many more. Members

Alexander Glaser is an Associate Professor with a joint appointment in Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and its Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (MAE)....
He's a bit like me: hates bad nukes and nuclear bombs, wants to see GOOD nukes and anti-proliferation reprocessing of nuclear fuel loads. Love it! Go Alexander, I wish you well.
Alexander Glaser

He agrees with you, therefore he is an authority? That does not seem like a good criterion to me.

Zia Mian is a Research Scientist in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security and directs its Project on Peace and Security in South Asia. He has a Ph.D. in physics (1991) from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. His research interests are in nuclear-weapon and nuclear-energy policy in South Asia. He is a Co-Editor of Science & Global Security. As of 1 January 2015, he is a co-chair of IPFM.
Wikipedia says: "Dr. Zia Mian is also a prominent peace activist and a strong supporter of non-nuclear proliferation,nuclear disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear technology"

He disagrees with you, therefore he is not an authority? That does not seem like a good criterion to me.

Pavel Podvig (Russia) is a researcher at the Program on Science and Global Security and a Senior Research Fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). ...
Has a generic physics degree, but his Phd and interests mainly lie in the politics of proliferation, not the operation of nuclear reactors. ZERO experience in nuclear reactors, more of a political theorist, if you'd looked at his blog or actual Princeton page.

He disagrees with you, therefore he is not an authority? That does not seem like a good criterion to me.

M. V. Ramana (India) is a Professional Specialist with a joint appointment in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security and its Nuclear Futures Laboratory. He has a Ph.D. in physics (1994) from Boston University and has held research positions at the University of Toronto and MIT. His research has focused on India's nuclear energy and weapon programs.

This guy reads like a Who's who of anti-nuclear activism: generic degrees in physics but no degree as a nuclear engineer and no time in the industry. Instead he's a fear monger rabbiting on about the same old myths.

He disagrees with you, therefore...

 

[doubtingmerle]

Like pray?

1 Kings 17:14 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the LORD sendeth rain upon the earth.

Here is a little experiment: When our fuel gauges get close to empty next time, I will try the "go to the gas station" solution and you can try the "pray" solution. Then we can report back on which solution got us the most additional miles on our car.

You in?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is a little experiment: When our fuel gauges get close to empty next time, I will try the "go to the gas station" solution and you can try the "pray" solution. Then we can report back on which solution got us the most additional miles on our car.

You in?

No.

Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

Looks to me like oil exists in the Tribulation period, as the rider of the black horse is given instructions about it.

So I'm not interested in those who say we're going to run out of oil.

Keep in mind too, that we are going to spend another thousand years here on Earth after the Tribulation period ends; so it looks like your scientific end-of-the-world scenario by way of oil depletion is SOL (short on luck).

 

[Abraxos]

 

[Heissonear]

No.

Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

Looks to me like oil exists in the Tribulation period, as the rider of the black horse is given instructions about it.

So I'm not interested in those who say we're going to run out of oil.

Keep in mind too, that we are going to spend another thousand years here on Earth after the Tribulation period ends; so it looks like your scientific end-of-the-world scenario by way of oil depletion is SOL (short on luck).

As He wants, the Scriptures are to guide us.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I would laugh.

 

[Abraxos]

I would laugh.

Lol I'm sure you would. How about my Christians brothers out there? What do you think about this?

I mean it's not a revelation, it's just not a widely known talked about fact that oil is produced by the planet.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Lol I'm sure you would. How about my Christians brothers out there? What do you think about this?

I mean it's not a revelation, it's just not a widely known talked about fact that oil is produced by the planet.

Yeah, and it's just not a widely known talked about fact that horses are made of chocolate pudding either.

If it ain't true, there generally won't be a lot of people saying it is.

 

[Abraxos]

Yeah, and it's just not a widely known talked about fact that horses are made of chocolate pudding either.

If it ain't true, there generally won't be a lot of people saying it is.

Well obviously people don't talk about it because they don't know about it or don't want to know about it.

You pride yourself as a "thinking man," right? How much oil can you squeeze out of a pine tree? A pint? If I'm being generous. All the world's oil corporations pump out trillions of gallons of oil a year, and all that came from plants and other organic materials?

It's not a fossil fuel, it's not even organic - it's chemical. A byproduct of serpentinization
we know as hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are what we refer to as oil, and methane gas, and calcium carbonate (chalk, limestone, marble, and calcite).

One is scientifically verifiable, the other is not. What do you think? Are you allowed to think beyond your current perceptions?

 

[Heissonear]

This video provides a very informative explanation about what would occur once our oil runs out and concerning the alternatives that might be employed in order to get mankind on its feet once more industrially. The question is if indeed algae is the solution as the video indicates, why not being the shift over to it now? Why wait for a disaster to strike?

Failing to plan is planning to fail!

The problem seems to be that the majority of mankind doesn't really appreciate the difference between renewable, such as sunlight, wind, hydraulic via water currents, ethanol which is a product of fermentation, and nonrenewable energy sources such as oil, and carbon.

Such ignorance seems to give them the impression that our present way of life which depends on the depletion of oil which is non-renewable is a permanent condition when it is indeed a temporary one soon to come to a sudden end with disastrous consequences unless we take precautionary action now.

I'm with on the planning part.

Since the 70's, particularly after the 1973-1976 Oil Embargo days, I have wanted "renewables" as the foremost source of energy for industry and everyday life. Yes, sunlight energy harnessed, wind energy captured, and ........

But the development of renewable technology to replace subterranean hydrocarbons historically shows it has been very difficult and will continue to take time with effort. And in large scale we are still in the 2010's not there, unfortunately.

Obama has clearly showed transition to renewables that the technology was not ready. Belly up renewable companies are prime indicators.

I wish the renewables, even hydrogen fuel cells, were ready but present reality shows they still are not.

It has been foolish for various politial and environmental groups to try and advert our use of subterranean hydrocarbons too quickly in transition to "renewables".

I have wished we could have 100% renewables since the 1970's but patience and hard work is still needed/required to get there.

And as a side note, the Earth has hydrocarbons to supply society for several hundred years, particularly as select renewables mature and are utilized in grand scale.

With the "drawbacks" note info - the following short list shows what we face on just a few renewables:

1. As per work relations with Veritas researchers, and now historical use facts, the megawatt-scale-size giant wind turbines at best have a 30 year lifespan, and realistically only 20 years to be the highside if properly maintenanced.

2. Hydrogen fuel cells require a minimum of 2000 psi fuel tanks on vehicles. Yikes! You think we have witnessed bad collision accidents!!! One car could jettison quite a ways before us! Or into others.

3. Giant solar farms are showing to be major Global Warming contributors themselves. Desert studies show day time captured heat by the solor panels radiate (solor panels cool) throughout the night hours. Real heat released captured and then atmospherically released by the panel array. Sad but true.

Crops (plants) and algae hold the least drawbacks at present. About 70% of the world is ocean and algae farms may have practical returnable energy-in to energy-out use.

And this goes with what AV mentioned, algae would produce oil primarily, due to energy density of oil molecules have compared to light molecular weight hydrocarbons like ethanol.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well obviously people don't talk about it because they don't know about it or don't want to know about it.

You pride yourself as a "thinking man," right? How much oil can you squeeze out of a pine tree? A pint? If I'm being generous.

How much oil can you squeeze out of a billion pine trees? A billion pints?

Remember the earth has been making plants for a long time.

It's not a fossil fuel, it's not even organic - it's chemical. A byproduct of serpentinization
we know as hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are what we refer to as oil, and methane gas, and calcium carbonate (chalk, limestone, marble, and calcite).

Then why are we consistently finding oil by looking for sedimentary rocks where it would accumulate from the plants? And why is there little replenishment of existing wells after they are sucked dry?

One is scientifically verifiable, the other is not. What do you think? Are you allowed to think beyond your current perceptions?

Yes.

 

[Heissonear]

Well obviously people don't talk about it because they don't know about it or don't want to know about it.

You pride yourself as a "thinking man," right? How much oil can you squeeze out of a pine tree? A pint? If I'm being generous. All the world's oil corporations pump out trillions of gallons of oil a year, and all that came from plants and other organic materials?

It's not a fossil fuel, it's not even organic - it's chemical. A byproduct of serpentinization
we know as hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are what we refer to as oil, and methane gas, and calcium carbonate (chalk, limestone, marble, and calcite).

One is scientifically verifiable, the other is not. What do you think? Are you allowed to think beyond your current perceptions?

You are bucking "group thinkers" but rightfully so.

You mentioned the form of chemistry and mechanism for hydrocarbons formation by inorganic origin.

As an inclusion, where hydrocarbons are found are under extreme overburden pressure. Think "Gulf of Mexico Macondo well blowout" pressures observed as an indicator to try and visualize the magnitude of pressure that hydrocarbons (fluid phase) have exerted upon them. This then physically leads the hydrocarbons trying to seek (migrate) towards the Earths surface, big time. The migration of hydrocarbons in sedimentary strata are very will known, and it is the permeability caprock location known as "petroleum traps" where most hydrocarbons are found (besides shales). With such overburden pressure still exerted on them for very long periods of time (millions of years) then all hydrocarbons by geopressure would already be at the Earth's surface. But such is not the case in most places. This then would lead one to think the Earth is not as old as the evolutionary geologists present.

The small mountian ridge on the westside of Vernal Utah is known as asphaltic ridge, for a reason - you can climb up half way or so and stop and listen in silence. What you will hear is asphalt oozing/seeping out of the sandstone rock by drops and splats occurring. The geopressure is the Unita Basin, and flow is up strata orientation towards the Uinta Mountians.

 

[eclipsenow]

Radrook, it sounds like you're getting it!

I have absolutely no reason to disparage the very activity I have been involved in for most of my life.[ That is absurd! I indeed have bothered with biblical theology up to the fanatically ridiculous point of seriously having neglected perhaps far more personally urgent aspects of my life. I also majored in history in my university studies towards my Social Science degree. Which goes to show just how far off base you are and how far you are willing to go when someone appears to disagree with you.
​

Dr Paul Barnett taught history to people like you, and taught the bible to people like you. Now I'll happily admit you never actually said he was a liberal fallen scholar out to disprove the bible, but just insinuated it. He still has (in his retirement) a heart for the gospel, and his commentary remains one of the most read commentaries on Revelation in conservative, reformed, gospel centred Sydney Anglican churches.

I am not opposing Paul’s advice to the Bereans. Neither am I advocating a dumb mindless uncritical approach to Bible scholarship. Those are blatant lies based on your misreading of what I said and your obvious urge to garble its meaning,.​

If you read my post, I was saying "Many Americans...." not necessarily you. I was warning against that trend. I apologise if I sounded like I was accusing you of that, but I was more warning you of becoming that. I now retract that statement in regards to you specifically, but watch that trend if you go into the eschatology forums (where this conversation should really be).

Millennialism of all stripes, pre-trib mid-trib post-trib pre-mil & post-mil has a history of weird groups, embarrassing failed predictions, and continues to embarrass the church today. The Reformers had it right.

Amillennialism was the dominant view of the Protestant Reformers. The Lutheran Church formally rejected chiliasm in The Augsburg Confession—"Art. XVII., condemns the Anabaptists (of Munster—historically most Anabaptist groups were amillennial) and others ’who now scatter Jewish opinions that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed.'"[19] Likewise, the Swiss Reformer, Heinrich Bullinger wrote up the Second Helvetic Confession which reads "We also reject the Jewish dream of a millennium, or golden age on earth, before the last judgment."[20] John Calvin wrote in Institutes that chiliasm is a "fiction" that is "too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation." He interpreted the thousand-year period of Revelation 20 non-literally, applying it to the "various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on earth."[21]
Amillennialism - Wikipedia​

If you wish you can find some Amils to react to over in the eschatology forum. Many of them are well read and more patient than I am. I've had a few goes in the eschatology forum, but burn out after a few months of the extreme weirdness over there. Some of the stuff over there just makes me wince with embarrassment for what my brothers and sisters in Christ are distracted by. As Peter said, the "Last Days" started in Acts 2, and as far as I can tell, the Amil position is that the Lord could return in 5 seconds or 50,000 years. We just don't know! As an Evolutionary Theist, I have no problem with the Lord taking vast measures of time to achieve his purposes. Who knows — He might return in a few million years! Or by the end of this sentence. In either case, our priorities are the same: to preach the gospel, provide for our families, study his word, and as Calvin said, something like (paraphrasing here) "The farmer should leave his field in a better condition than when he received it." Something to that effect.

This thread is about oil, and the end of oil. I'm happy to continue with this discussion on technical grounds and Christian ethical stances to this, but am not going to devolve into an eschatological debate. If you want that, the eschatology forums are here. Cheers.

​

 

[eclipsenow]

I see it is published by WSJ so should be reliable, but I notice that they also published this:
Which Oil Producers Are Breaking Even?

I'm with Merle on this one. It's been decades since we've found more oil than we've consumed. The last time we found about as much as we consumed was back in 1990. Since then we're burning more and more oil, and discovering less and less. Today we're burning oil our grandparents discovered. That black line is consumption, the grey bars going way down is past discovery.

Even National Geographic is not that hopeful about fracking replacing the difference long term, and says you'll only get a few years. Poor fracking, we were only just getting to know (and truly hate) you!

The IEA report projects that U.S. domestic oil supplies, dominated by fracking, will begin to decline by 2020. "As tight oil output in the United States levels off, and non-OPEC supply falls back in the 2020s," the report says, "the Middle East becomes the major source of supply growth."

Earlier this year the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) also forecast a plateau in U.S. oil production after 2020.​

Or, as this geophysicist says, it goes down fast AND the 'resource' present in a field is not necessarily the estimated ultimate recovery, because what you extract depends on economics.

Firstly, shale oil requires continuous drilling as the production of wells declines rapidly (with typically about 50-60 % of production during the first year of production).......
....Worldwide the level of debt of the energy industry stands at a record high of $2.5 trillion at a time that the value of assets backing these loans stands at a record low. The day of reckoning may be postponed but one day it will come. ​

Peak oil is a thing. I found out about it way back in 2004, which was a really tough period in my life because my wonderful 5 year old boy was having chemo for Leukaemia. Being the primary carer in hospital, I wasn't really getting enough sleep or able to care for myself normally. And yet the implications of peak oil were so awful I burned the candle at both ends, even during that difficult time! I wrote articles on it for Christian websites and magazines, and could not just forget about it. I formed a group that presented material to minority parties in the NSW parliament! It became a part of my ethical framework as a Christian. What right does this generation have to burn up all the oil? What are we going to do if it starts to run down? What are we going to do because we are literally eating fossil fuels, and it takes 10 calories of oil and gas energy to grow 1 calorie of food energy?

The good news is that I am firmly convinced we have the technology to replace oil and will have cleaner cities as a result. It's just the timing. We've left it so late, are we facing a Greater Depression? What drastic emergency measures will we face? I've compiled some of them here: what if we face a really
Sudden oil crisis

 

[eclipsenow]

What if I told you, that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were real? We know how oil was formed because we can see the first stages of it today at the bottom of our oceans, and we can use science to understand the geological time, processes, heat and pressure that cooked up that biomass into the chemical structure we see today. We're finding a geology that is entirely consistent with fossil oil, and we search for oil based on the story what geology tells us according to this theory. Prediction works, we drill, we find oil.

Yes, there are methane seas on Titan that presumably did not come from life. But that's not what we're finding here. It all fits with the science of an old earth. I don't know but I'm forced to wonder, do you reject fossil oil because of any young earth creationist sympathies?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know but I'm forced to wonder, do you reject fossil oil because of any young earth creationist sympathies?

I believe God created the earth with oil in it.

Just like He could have created a loaf of raisin bread with raisins in it.