So, is the petrol running out and stuff?

[Mr Jack]

Gosh, 1951! Real cutting edge research there

It's not, btw, true that Russian scientists believe the abiogenic theory; it originated there but since it's - you know - codswallop it no longer holds sway.

May as well believe in phlogiston, tbh.

 

[[TW]Fox]

We will never run out of oil and petrol, but one day it will reach a point where price will rise to such a point where it is simpy unaffordable for most, and alternatives will be used out of neccesity. Now whether those alternatives are as easy to use and convenient as petrol remains to be seen, but we won't run out - we'll stop extracting it due to lack of demand or the high price of extraction which is not met by demand at the price it would need to be sold at to remain profitable.

 

[Liampope]

At the end of the day any argument for either theory can be countered by an argument form the other, however neither argument can be definitively proven, either theory could be wrong but we don't have the information to know at this point in time.

Some general useful information for you - just because two competing theories both cannot be proven, doesn't mean they both have equal weight. Especially when one theory buries the other with a mountain of actual evidence! Such is the case for biogenic vs abiogenic petroleum formation, the latter having literally no supporting evidence.

Believe me - I work in the industry - nobody is basing any exploration operations on the predictions of abiogenic origin theory. That includes Russia and Ukraine who certainly dont 'believe in it' at any sort of decision making level. And Ukraine - one of the most oil rich countries there are? Ukraine? Whaaaaaaaaat??

 

[Jonny69]

There is academic and scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a finite non-renewable resource. There is academic and scientific consensus that peak oil is happening now or it will happen in the very near future. This means that oil prices will start to rise sharply as extraction costs increase. If you look at the normalised oil prices with the peaks ironed out (due to short term crises such as wars) you'll see the prices are rising now. As mentioned, at the point where oil becomes too expensive to justify extracting, the other technologies become economically viable.

 

[Cosimo]

Phew my Mustang is quite economical then at 12mpg.

Andi.

So is my 4.4 litre V8.

 

[Radiation]

It could be a driving force for positive change or it could end badly but one way or another resources will decline and get more expensive as population continues to increase, our civilisation is currently running unsustainable so we should be making the necessary changes now, of course we can just wait and see what happens, maybe science and technology will make a breakthrough.

 

[ubersonic]

Especially when one theory buries the other with a mountain of actual evidence! Such is the case for biogenic vs abiogenic petroleum formation, the latter having literally no supporting evidence.

Okay here is some (that took only a second on google to find):

Kudryavtsev introduced a number of other relevant observations into the argument about the theory of abiogenic petroleum origin.

Columns of flames have been seen during the eruptions of some volcanoes, sometimes reaching 500 meters in height, such as during the eruption of Mount Marapi in Sumatra in 1932. (There have been several other instances subsequently.)

The eruptions of mud-volcanoes have liberated such large quantities of methane that even the most prolific gasfield underneath should have been exhausted long ago.

The quantities of mud deposited in some cases would have required eruptions of much more gas than is known in any gasfield anywhere.

The water in mud volcanoes in some instances carries such substances as iodine, bromine and boron that could not have been derived from local sediments, and that exceed the concentrations in seawater one hundredfold.

Mud volcanoes are often associated with lava volcanoes, and the typical relationship is that where they are close, the mud volcanoes emit incombustible gases, while the ones further away emit methane.

He knew of the occurrence of oil in basement rocks of the Kola Peninsula, and of the surface seeps of oil in the Siljan Ring formation of central Sweden.

He noted as mentioned above that the enormous quantities of hydrocarbons in the Athabasca tar sands in Canada would have required vast amounts of source rocks for their generation in the conventional discussion, when in fact no source rocks have been found.

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

There is academic and scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a finite non-renewable resource. There is academic and scientific consensus that peak oil is happening now or it will happen in the very near future.

The is also academic and scientific consensus that peak oil theory was created by an idiot on the back of an envelope during a dinner (Hubbert) and that whereas most scientists form a theory based on evidence he then set out to find evidence to make his theory credible. Supporters of his theory claimed it would occur in 1990, no wait 2000, no wait 2005, like a leading academic said about peak oil ‘If a theory’s predictions are wrong, then the theory is wrong’. Hubberts theory doesn't take into account the discovery of new resources or the arrival of technology to access unobtainable resources.

But of course the academics and scientists that disparage Hubbert don't get a voice just like the ones that fight against the man made global warming myth because their not saying what the industry/government/etc want to hear...

 

[teaboy5]

We will never run out of oil and petrol, but one day it will reach a point where price will rise to such a point where it is simpy unaffordable for most, and alternatives will be used out of neccesity. Now whether those alternatives are as easy to use and convenient as petrol remains to be seen, but we won't run out - we'll stop extracting it due to lack of demand or the high price of extraction which is not met by demand at the price it would need to be sold at to remain profitable.

This the issue as fox has already said.

No one is going to fill their car up for example if it's costs them around 180 pound.

We will never run out of oil, but whether we can afford to extract oil is a different matter.

 

[Pixel]

I can't understand why people buy 4x4s without ever planning on taking them off-road.

It's like buying a set of golf clubs to use as back scratchers.

 

[Basher]

I can't understand why people buy 4x4s without ever planning on taking them off-road.

It's like buying a set of golf clubs to use as back scratchers.

Because they like how they look/drive? I don't see the issue.

 

[Edrof]

What's making the petrol prices rise steadily at the pumps? Is it that the current oil supplies are becoming harder and thus more expensive to extract and refine?

I can't understand why people buy 4x4s without ever planning on taking them off-road.

It's like buying a set of golf clubs to use as back scratchers.

They think they look rich/cool?

 

[Elixir]

This anti 4x4 brigade can jog on tbh. Do you get angry at people driving sports cars? Or someone ragging the balls of a 1.1 yaris and achieving 20mpg?

Sums it up for me, I seriously doubt all these people spearheading the mpg argument drive their car to maximise mpg.

It does annoy me seeing 4x4s with no dirt on them in the middle of a city, but that's because I'm a farmer boy, not because of their excessive fuel consumption.

What's the difference between a hedgehog and a Range Rover?
A hedgehog has pricks on the outside.

 

[EdGey]

vid

Good god.

 

[frosty03]

I can't understand why people buy 4x4s without ever planning on taking them off-road.

It's like buying a set of golf clubs to use as back scratchers.

Same reason why some overclock their rigs but only ever run word and powerpoint......

It's more like buying the golf clubs and taking them to the driving range only, since the 4x4s are driven but not driven in a way for their "intended design"...

The whiff of jealousy in this thread is overpowering.... what other people do with their money is their prerogative. We all pay the same amount of tax for petrol already, the 4x4s pay more in road tax anyhow. So why should it matter how people choose to spend their money. The environment angle doesnt wash either, since you're just comparing vehicles rather than actual petrol usage, for which an old banger driven badly may use more petrol (and make more co2) than a 4x4.

 

[Sunbed]

Lots of mad 4x4 owners in here...

For the record the Range Rover Sport HSE is probably one of my least favourite cars I see on the road. Why take a perfectly good luxury off road car, and make it deliberately worse off the road with the intention of making the owner look like more of a drug dealer or someone from "The only way is Essex". Stupid.

PS I drive a Fiat Panda 1.1 (salary related reasons) and yes I am comfortable with the size of my todger.

To answer the OP's concerns: Yes fuel will become more expensive as it runs out, which will naturally force cars to become more economical. The government can influence the uptake of more efficient cars by offering incentives, which they are doing now to an extent.

Another thought... with cars getting bigger and heavier it raises more safety concerns. If I were to have a head on collision with an X5 or Range Rover, I'm dead... they won't be scratched. Is it right that I have to buy a bigger car to be safer on the roads?

Just to be clear, I don't "hate" 4x4's or anything. I just think they're pointless. I'd rather have a nice BMW 3 series or hot hatch over some massive fat thing, regardless of the price.

 

[Jonny69]

But of course the academics and scientists that disparage Hubbert don't get a voice just like the ones that fight against the man made global warming myth because their not saying what the industry/government/etc want to hear...

I think that's a little far fetched, don't you? I don't say things in my research because industry/government/etc want to hear it. I do it because I've based it on evidence and drawn my own conclusions.

And yes, there has been a steep decline in the number of oil sources that are being discovered. Be they economical or uneconomical, there are still fewer of them being discovered than there were 15 years ago.

ALL finite resources will eventually have a Hubbert peak, whether you choose to believe it or not. The clue is in the name for a start. I think you're mixing up Hubbert's model of a peak of resource discovery with estimations of the sizes of resource bases.

 

[PhilthyPhil]

I can't understand why people buy 4x4s without ever planning on taking them off-road.

It's like buying a set of golf clubs to use as back scratchers.

Around here (Oxfordshire) most of the roads in the towns aren't much better than farm tracks so it doesn't exactly surprise me to see so many people in 4x4s

 

[jas72]

Stuff!

I imagine Ali G reading that title... made me lol

 

[jas72]

It is likely to become increasingly uneconomical to extract it. At some point it will become too expensive and alternatives will have to be sought, and at some point it will take more effort and energy to find it and dig it up than is actually generated by it.

ie when it costs 1 barrel of oil to extract 1 barrel of oil.

Thing is we need oil for much more than simply a jaunt down to the shops. It's in everything we use.

 

[ZombieFan]

What's making the petrol prices rise steadily at the pumps? Is it that the current oil supplies are becoming harder and thus more expensive to extract and refine?

Actually, the price of (brent crude) oil is on a slight downward slope at the moment. It's still high, but slightly down on last month.

The high price at the pumps is more to do with our overall economy, specifically the value of the pound against the US dollar. Since oil is sold in dollars, the currency rate between GBP and USD affects the price.

edit - I lie The price is down for the quarter, but up for the month.