News:
R.I.P to the great Charlie Kirk!
- Welcome to THeBlueCashew.
Posted by wizer
- Today at 01:45:36 AMQuote from: Shen Li on November 05, 2025, 11:24:52 PMEngineering and Technology Magazine reported this week that BP — the company that once wanted to be known as "Beyond Petroleum" rather than "British Petroleum" — is saying "the world is no longer at risk of running out of resources."
A BP official told the magazine that "energy resources are plentiful.
Suggestion: Rather than mindlessly believing something to be true just because an executive of an oil company says it is, because doing so clearly is of benefit to the stockholders of that company, due some research before blindly regurgitating questionable statements that can easily be disputed by the facts.
Quote from: Lokmar on November 05, 2025, 09:24:06 AMThe formation of oil in nature DOES NOT take millions of years.
No clue where you live but here on earth it sure does.
Posted by Shen Li
- November 05, 2025, 11:24:52 PMQuote from: Lokmar on November 05, 2025, 09:24:06 AMThe formation of oil in nature DOES NOT take millions of years. Hydrothermal vents in The Gulf of California interact with kelp producing light sweet crude. This oil floats to the surface continuously. Sure, a lot of the oil we pump from the ground may have been trapped for millions of years but it was produced in a very short time.Engineering and Technology Magazine reported this week that BP — the company that once wanted to be known as "Beyond Petroleum" rather than "British Petroleum" — is saying "the world is no longer at risk of running out of resources."
What this means for humans is we can produce oil from biomass easily. Ethanol from grass and corn has been in production for more than 20 years. I use E-85 in my cars and cut the cats off them because they're no longer needed.
A BP official told the magazine that "energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared."
Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says "with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand." That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.
This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.
Posted by DKG
- November 05, 2025, 09:57:17 AMQuote from: Shen Li on November 05, 2025, 01:07:23 AMwizer my friend, the stone age didn't end because the earth ran out of rocks.That is true. And their are hydrocarbons on other planets where there was no marine sediment. But, the easily accessed hydrocarbons come from algae and plankton.
I hate the term fossil fuels because it is so misleading. However, they are renewable just not at the current rate of consumption. Actually natural gas is. That we have an inexhaustible supply that can be scaled up or down and requires nothing close to the land disturbance that diffuse energy sources like wind and solar do.
Peak demand is a possibility. Particularly since Western countries have become so efficient in their use of oil derivatives.
Peak oil on the other hand dates all the way back to the 1880s. Repeated predictions of peak oil supply have repeatedly been moved further into the future. Soviet oil exploration adopted the abiotic oil theory—the idea that hydrocarbons are generated by inorganic processes in the Earth's mantle, not from decomposed biological material.
The Soviets didn't just theorise, they acted. They developed deep-drilling programs that tapped into oil fields far below what traditional fossil theories considered viable. The results?
Dnieper-Donets Basin: Considered geologically "sterile," this Ukrainian site was one of the Soviet Union's most productive oil regions, reaching depths of 6–8 km.
White Tiger Field, Vietnam: Discovered by Soviet engineers, this offshore field also defied fossil logic by producing oil from granite basement rock, far below sedimentary layers typically associated with fossil fuels.
The strongest challenge to peak oil comes not from theory, but from the earth itself.
Eugene Island 330: Replenishing rates were so bizarre that the U.S. Department of Energy funded multiple studies. MIT's Jean Laherrère remarked that the field "appeared to be refilling from somewhere below."
LaBarge Field, Wyoming: Produces oil, gas, and helium—another deep-earth marker. The gases are geochemically traced to mantle origins.
Kola Superdeep Borehole: Although no oil was struck directly, the borehole encountered unexpected water and hydrocarbons at depths where life should not have existed. It confirmed that deep Earth chemistry is far more complex—and fertile—than fossil logic suggests.
If oil is being formed in the mantle and slowly migrating upward, then the question isn't whether oil is running out—it's how much is being created and how fast.
Petroleum products have provided for so many advances besides energy. From agriculture to medicine to engineering to even music. They even play a role in mitigating any potential climate change impacts. It is so essential to an advanced way of life. Nobody seriously thinks we can find an organic resource or create one that could match it's many uses.
What I don't get is if you are concerned about supplies going forward why would you want to replace an energy source you think is running out with something that is more finite than oil and natural gas. You do know wind and solar use a lot of natural resources that actually are finite?
It is true that wind solar and electric vehicles are the least sustainable energy and transportation sources.
Posted by DKG
- November 05, 2025, 09:54:53 AMQuote from: Lokmar on November 05, 2025, 09:24:06 AMThe formation of oil in nature DOES NOT take millions of years. Hydrothermal vents in The Gulf of California interact with kelp producing light sweet crude. This oil floats to the surface continuously. Sure, a lot of the oil we pump from the ground may have been trapped for millions of years but it was produced in a very short time.We will never run out of hydrocarbons. Technology has debunked that myth.
What this means for humans is we can produce oil from biomass easily. Ethanol from grass and corn has been in production for more than 20 years. I use E-85 in my cars and cut the cats off them because they're no longer needed.
Posted by Lokmar
- November 05, 2025, 09:24:06 AMQuote from: wizer on November 05, 2025, 02:09:51 AMThe technology needs further improvement but it's one or more steps in the right direcition. Oil and natural gas are certainly replenished but not at a rate that is even close to what is necessary based on consumption rates that are only climbing but it's very reassuring to think that oil will last forever. No different than people believing there's another life after this one so it doesn't matter if you fuck it up because some bearded clown in the sky loves you even though innocent people are killed on a regular basis no matter how much they pray.
Oil is not replenished from the Earth. It is formed from the remains of ancient plants and animals that lived millions of years ago and is not available for regeneration. The process of oil formation takes millions of years, and it cannot be replenished faster than it is extracted
Claims that oil is being replenished faster than it's being used have been proven false by numerous well regarded scientific studies.
The formation of oil in nature DOES NOT take millions of years. Hydrothermal vents in The Gulf of California interact with kelp producing light sweet crude. This oil floats to the surface continuously. Sure, a lot of the oil we pump from the ground may have been trapped for millions of years but it was produced in a very short time.
What this means for humans is we can produce oil from biomass easily. Ethanol from grass and corn has been in production for more than 20 years. I use E-85 in my cars and cut the cats off them because they're no longer needed.
Posted by wizer
- November 05, 2025, 02:09:51 AMQuote from: Shen Li on November 05, 2025, 01:07:23 AMYou do know wind and solar use a lot of natural resources that actually are finite?
The technology needs further improvement but it's one or more steps in the right direcition. Oil and natural gas are certainly replenished but not at a rate that is even close to what is necessary based on consumption rates that are only climbing but it's very reassuring to think that oil will last forever. No different than people believing there's another life after this one so it doesn't matter if you fuck it up because some bearded clown in the sky loves you even though innocent people are killed on a regular basis no matter how much they pray.
Oil is not replenished from the Earth. It is formed from the remains of ancient plants and animals that lived millions of years ago and is not available for regeneration. The process of oil formation takes millions of years, and it cannot be replenished faster than it is extracted
Claims that oil is being replenished faster than it's being used have been proven false by numerous well regarded scientific studies.
Posted by Lokmar
- November 05, 2025, 01:14:30 AMLOL! I almost forgot about the idiocy of peak oil! Thats been a long fucking time ago since that hysteria! 
Posted by Shen Li
- November 05, 2025, 01:07:23 AMwizer my friend, the stone age didn't end because the earth ran out of rocks.
I hate the term fossil fuels because it is so misleading. However, they are renewable just not at the current rate of consumption. Actually natural gas is. That we have an inexhaustible supply that can be scaled up or down and requires nothing close to the land disturbance that diffuse energy sources like wind and solar do.
Peak demand is a possibility. Particularly since Western countries have become so efficient in their use of oil derivatives.
Peak oil on the other hand dates all the way back to the 1880s. Repeated predictions of peak oil supply have repeatedly been moved further into the future. Soviet oil exploration adopted the abiotic oil theory—the idea that hydrocarbons are generated by inorganic processes in the Earth's mantle, not from decomposed biological material.
The Soviets didn't just theorise, they acted. They developed deep-drilling programs that tapped into oil fields far below what traditional fossil theories considered viable. The results?
Dnieper-Donets Basin: Considered geologically "sterile," this Ukrainian site was one of the Soviet Union's most productive oil regions, reaching depths of 6–8 km.
White Tiger Field, Vietnam: Discovered by Soviet engineers, this offshore field also defied fossil logic by producing oil from granite basement rock, far below sedimentary layers typically associated with fossil fuels.
The strongest challenge to peak oil comes not from theory, but from the earth itself.
Eugene Island 330: Replenishing rates were so bizarre that the U.S. Department of Energy funded multiple studies. MIT's Jean Laherrère remarked that the field "appeared to be refilling from somewhere below."
LaBarge Field, Wyoming: Produces oil, gas, and helium—another deep-earth marker. The gases are geochemically traced to mantle origins.
Kola Superdeep Borehole: Although no oil was struck directly, the borehole encountered unexpected water and hydrocarbons at depths where life should not have existed. It confirmed that deep Earth chemistry is far more complex—and fertile—than fossil logic suggests.
If oil is being formed in the mantle and slowly migrating upward, then the question isn't whether oil is running out—it's how much is being created and how fast.
Petroleum products have provided for so many advances besides energy. From agriculture to medicine to engineering to even music. They even play a role in mitigating any potential climate change impacts. It is so essential to an advanced way of life. Nobody seriously thinks we can find an organic resource or create one that could match it's many uses.
What I don't get is if you are concerned about supplies going forward why would you want to replace an energy source you think is running out with something that is more finite than oil and natural gas. You do know wind and solar use a lot of natural resources that actually are finite?
I hate the term fossil fuels because it is so misleading. However, they are renewable just not at the current rate of consumption. Actually natural gas is. That we have an inexhaustible supply that can be scaled up or down and requires nothing close to the land disturbance that diffuse energy sources like wind and solar do.
Peak demand is a possibility. Particularly since Western countries have become so efficient in their use of oil derivatives.
Peak oil on the other hand dates all the way back to the 1880s. Repeated predictions of peak oil supply have repeatedly been moved further into the future. Soviet oil exploration adopted the abiotic oil theory—the idea that hydrocarbons are generated by inorganic processes in the Earth's mantle, not from decomposed biological material.
The Soviets didn't just theorise, they acted. They developed deep-drilling programs that tapped into oil fields far below what traditional fossil theories considered viable. The results?
Dnieper-Donets Basin: Considered geologically "sterile," this Ukrainian site was one of the Soviet Union's most productive oil regions, reaching depths of 6–8 km.
White Tiger Field, Vietnam: Discovered by Soviet engineers, this offshore field also defied fossil logic by producing oil from granite basement rock, far below sedimentary layers typically associated with fossil fuels.
The strongest challenge to peak oil comes not from theory, but from the earth itself.
Eugene Island 330: Replenishing rates were so bizarre that the U.S. Department of Energy funded multiple studies. MIT's Jean Laherrère remarked that the field "appeared to be refilling from somewhere below."
LaBarge Field, Wyoming: Produces oil, gas, and helium—another deep-earth marker. The gases are geochemically traced to mantle origins.
Kola Superdeep Borehole: Although no oil was struck directly, the borehole encountered unexpected water and hydrocarbons at depths where life should not have existed. It confirmed that deep Earth chemistry is far more complex—and fertile—than fossil logic suggests.
If oil is being formed in the mantle and slowly migrating upward, then the question isn't whether oil is running out—it's how much is being created and how fast.
Petroleum products have provided for so many advances besides energy. From agriculture to medicine to engineering to even music. They even play a role in mitigating any potential climate change impacts. It is so essential to an advanced way of life. Nobody seriously thinks we can find an organic resource or create one that could match it's many uses.
What I don't get is if you are concerned about supplies going forward why would you want to replace an energy source you think is running out with something that is more finite than oil and natural gas. You do know wind and solar use a lot of natural resources that actually are finite?
Posted by wizer
- November 04, 2025, 10:35:39 PMQuote from: DKG on November 04, 2025, 10:52:37 AMThat is simply factually dead wrong. Start to finish. Peak oil has been completely debunked. Through technology we are constantly finding new cost effective ways of extracting natural gas which is literally everywhere in Canada. Your article ignored that we are adding to new storage all the time.
Your article was talking about existing reserves. We are finding new reserves all the time that are not in production yet.
I provided a link to one article. When you do a search on "when will oil run out", thousands of pages are displayed, the vast majority from reputable sources explaining when and why it's going to happen and they are in strikingly similar agreement "about 50 years".
Sure, the numbers are based on what is known now about the current supply of oil, where it's found, how much of it is available and how often new locations are discovered. There could be an ocean of oil somewhere under the ground that would skew those number but based on what is known, it's not looking too good. Some sources halve that 50 year number.
Same for natural gas.
The sources that contradict those that are in agreement are few and far between and sound rather questionable.
This sums it up rather nicely:
Predicting the exact moment oil reserves run dry is impossible. The "oil clock" isn't a simple countdown; it's a complex calculation influenced by a multitude of interconnected factors. Focusing solely on proven reserves provides a misleadingly pessimistic view. The real question isn't just about how much oil we know is in the ground, but also about how efficiently we can extract it, what alternatives we develop, and how drastically we can reduce our reliance on it.
Posted by Herman
- November 04, 2025, 07:24:22 PMI worked in the upstream oil and gas industry all my working life off of the farm. Environmental standards for drilling rigs in developing countries aint what they are here but it is still a hell of a lot better than any cobalt copper or lithium mine in Africa. They are needed for wind solar and evs's but they are really finite.
Posted by DKG
- November 04, 2025, 10:52:37 AMQuote from: wizer on November 04, 2025, 10:14:36 AMPredictions vary and largely depend on consumption rates, but experts estimate that it will be between 90 and 120 years before we run out of natural gas.That is simply factually dead wrong. Start to finish. Peak oil has been completely debunked. Through technology we are constantly finding new cost effective ways of extracting natural gas which is literally everywhere in Canada. Your article ignored that we are adding to new storage all the time.
At the rate oil and coal are being consumed and depleted, estimates vary that if usage stays the same or increases, known oil reserves will be depleted within 50 years, coal within 130 years.
Who knows maybe if usage continues to skyrocket and those numbers turn out to be overly optimistic, we will live to see the devasting effects of fossil fuels start to reverse as there's nothing left to burn.
https://www.fairplanet.org/story/when-will-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels/
Your article was talking about existing reserves. We are finding new reserves all the time that are not in production yet.
I will give you an example. This is from just one province in Canada.
New analysis commissioned by the Alberta Energy Regulator has increased the province's natural gas reserves by 440 per cent, bumping Canada into the global top 10.
https://energysecurityfreedom.substack.com/p/alberta-natural-gas-reserves-swell
Here is why the world will never run out of oil and natural gas from an engineer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MOU4MPshCw
What is interesting is that a number of finite resources including land will run if we foolishly try to reengineer the economy to electric vehicles, wind and solar.
A lithium-ion battery pack for a single electric car contains about 8 kilograms (kg) of lithium, according to figures from US Department of Energy science and engineering research centre Argonne National Laboratory.
Global lithium production totalled 100,000 tons (90.7 million kg) last year, while worldwide reserves stand at about 22 million tons (20 billion kg), according to the US Geological Survey.
Lithium is one of the key components in electric vehicle (EV) batteries, but global supplies are under strain because of rising EV demand.
Lithium supply faces challenges not only from surging demand, but because resources are concentrated in a few places and over half of today's production is in areas with high water stress.
Lithium is a non-ferrous metal known as "white gold", and is one of the key components in EV batteries, alongside nickel and cobalt. But rising demand for Electric Vehicles is straining global lithium supplies.
A lithium-ion battery pack for a single electric car contains about 8 kilograms (kg) of lithium, according to figures from US Department of Energy science and engineering research centre Argonne National Laboratory.
Global lithium production totalled 100,000 tons (90.7 million kg) last year, while worldwide reserves stand at about 22 million tons (20 billion kg), according to the US Geological Survey.
Lithium demand could soon exceed supply.
"There simply isn't going to be enough lithium on the face of the planet, regardless of who expands and who delivers, it just won't be there," Lake Resources Chairman Stuart Crow told the Financial Times. "Car makers are starting to sense that maybe the battery makers aren't going to be able to deliver."
Lithium extraction requires very high volumes of water, and this is leading to problems around water stress – a situation where a region's water resources are not enough to meet its needs.
This is particularly concerning given that a lot of lithium is found in drought-prone regions – such as South America and Australia. Bolivia's San Cristóbal mine reportedly uses 50,000 litres of water a day, and lithium mining companies in Chile have been accused of depleting vital water supplies.
More than half of today's lithium production is in areas with high water stress, the IEA says. "Several major producing regions such as Australia, China, and Africa are also subject to extreme heat or flooding, which pose greater challenges in ensuring reliable and sustainable supplies," it adds.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/07/electric-vehicles-world-enough-lithium-resources/
Oil and natural gas use up fewer finite resources and disturb smaller amounts of land. Hence, they are more sustainable than wind, solar and ev's.
Posted by wizer
- November 04, 2025, 10:14:36 AMQuote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMNatural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either.
Predictions vary and largely depend on consumption rates, but experts estimate that it will be between 90 and 120 years before we run out of natural gas.
At the rate oil and coal are being consumed and depleted, estimates vary that if usage stays the same or increases, known oil reserves will be depleted within 50 years, coal within 130 years.
Who knows maybe if usage continues to skyrocket and those numbers turn out to be overly optimistic, we will live to see the devasting effects of fossil fuels start to reverse as there's nothing left to burn.
https://www.fairplanet.org/story/when-will-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels/
Posted by DKG
- November 04, 2025, 10:03:46 AMQuote from: . on November 04, 2025, 12:39:27 AMIt looks very much like it's bacteria-produced. So yeah, anything left undisturbed for long enough under the right conditions would become oil, dinosaurs included.You raise another good point. Oil and natural gas production can be quickly ramped up or down when demand goes in either direction.
Nuclear is a lot cleaner and safer than it was. Yay technology. The only problem I see with nuclear is provisioning, it is great at producing power demands for a static load, dynamic not so much. Perhaps storing the excess energy produced at times of low load for later release into the grid is a solution and there are a number of methods by which that can be achieved.
Correct. But when have you ever seen an environmentalist address the troupe of elephants in the room when it came to just how pollutive the supposed "green solution" is, both in terms of its implementation and its ultimate disposal once it reaches EOL? As far as they are concerned, if the pollution is largely hidden (ie: location, time, etc) then it's not a matter for concern.
Fun fact; it is theoretically possible that we might solve the entire world's energy problems by populating the Sahara desert with solar farms. Only a couple of problems with that, one being financing the build in the first place, it literally costing more money to do than is currently in circulation on the entire planet. Oh, and the difference in albedo in that neck of the woods would create a raft of issues in Amazon basin (including it's eventual drying up, but hey.... green energy for all, right?
Much better to plod along with what you know works until you have a system in place that trumps it. Some people are a little too fucked in the head to recognise that though.
One of the many problems we have had with wind farms in Canada is they produce excess power when it is not needed and not nearly enough when demand is high in extreme cold or heat. When Western Canada(Alberta in particular) falls victim to their annual -30 cold snaps and demand explodes they have to import coal produced electricity from Saskatchewan or Montana.
Posted by .
- November 04, 2025, 12:39:27 AMQuote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMNuclear is environmentally friendly and it won't run out. Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.It looks very much like it's bacteria-produced. So yeah, anything left undisturbed for long enough under the right conditions would become oil, dinosaurs included.
Nuclear is a lot cleaner and safer than it was. Yay technology. The only problem I see with nuclear is provisioning, it is great at producing power demands for a static load, dynamic not so much. Perhaps storing the excess energy produced at times of low load for later release into the grid is a solution and there are a number of methods by which that can be achieved.
Quote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMSolar and wind power are the least environmentally friendly sources. They have a massive environmental cost because the rare earth minerals needed for wind turbines and solar panels come from mines in developing countries. They are very very non renewable.Correct. But when have you ever seen an environmentalist address the troupe of elephants in the room when it came to just how pollutive the supposed "green solution" is, both in terms of its implementation and its ultimate disposal once it reaches EOL? As far as they are concerned, if the pollution is largely hidden (ie: location, time, etc) then it's not a matter for concern.
Wind and solar use up more of another important finite resources too - land. They require a lot more land than wind or solar to provide less energy than natural gas nuclear or hydroelectric.
Fun fact; it is theoretically possible that we might solve the entire world's energy problems by populating the Sahara desert with solar farms. Only a couple of problems with that, one being financing the build in the first place, it literally costing more money to do than is currently in circulation on the entire planet. Oh, and the difference in albedo in that neck of the woods would create a raft of issues in Amazon basin (including it's eventual drying up, but hey.... green energy for all, right?
Much better to plod along with what you know works until you have a system in place that trumps it. Some people are a little too fucked in the head to recognise that though.
Posted by Shen Li
- November 04, 2025, 12:21:15 AMQuoteNatural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.Back in Canada I know people with post grad degrees who don't know oil and natural gas come from marine sediment made of the remains of algae and plankton. They think it comes from dinosaurs.
