Mr. Patterson...I read what you had to say regarding Roger and his comments. He never stated or inferred that geologists were stupid. Nor did he suggest that the "hardned basalt, formerly molten mgma, contains oil. You brought up these topics.

I actually enjoyed his post and the Bakken, as I suspect you already know, extends thru the Dakotas and up into Saskatchewan. There is potential with the Bakken and many "oil plays" are being pursued.

There used to be a theory that impact structures might contain oil and gas. There was an entire track on this at the 1995 AAPG conference on this concept. Since the price of oil hasn't dropped to five dollars a barrel I conclude that this theory didn't actually work in the real world.

Hope the ballgame came out to suit you! :-)
I of course do not expect a reply "that night"...my discussion was concerning posters, whoever they may be, coming on and lambasting a post, using red herring statements that were not even in the original post, and then when the poster (in this case, me) posts a clarification, usually defending himself against statements he never made to begin with, the lambasting poster disappears...the "guerrilla" strike method of trying to insult and lambast a post that somehow displeases the sensibility of the lambaster (in this case, that would be you! :-) I usually check for replies over the next couple of days, and have come to accept that if there is none, then the guerilla posters must accept my position completely! Take the positive route I say.

A great example is your sentence:
"I am going to bed now but will reply to you in the morning if you really think there is a possibility that former molten magma may be rich with oil."

Since my original post made no mention of magma, molten or otherwise, so of course there is no need in your wasting a reply.

Likewise, as paradigm shifter noted in his reply to you, my post made no mention of geologists being stupid.

I am not fool enough to get into the details of a petroleum geology debate, as that is not my area, and I have the utmost respect for geologists. I just don't view them as some sort of deity. Many geologists have proven other geologists wrong. The smart ones don't worship at the alter of their own infallibility, but I posted a link and let the geologist discussed defend his own record, which doesn't seem to be too shabby, of going after oil where others dismissed the possibility of success.

My points were much broader, consisting of two main themes:

I said this...
The posts on any story put on TOD "recently have a subtext of absolute dejection and defeatism that has become so pronounced that if you come here with a belief that any solution or any alternative is possible, you are pretty much wasting your time."

I reread it. I stand by it.

My other main point was this:
"The truth is, the human race still knows VERY little about what lies below the surface of the earth and floor of the sea."

I reread it. I stand by it.

Now of course I absolutely differ with your remark that virtually the whole world and the Contintal Shelf have been "explored". I would need some sort of proof of that one, unless the definition of "explored" means "photographed from a satellite perhaps....

In a recent presentation, Matthew Simmons gave the offshore area explored as 5%. Even regarding onshore oil, we have to ask many questions: Explored with what type of technology? Explored when? Explored at what depth?
Explored for viability at what price for the recovered oil? Explored considering what technology would be available for extraction?

It is hard for me to understand why oil companies would explore for oil at depths in the 1980's at depths that were not even feasible to drill at in those days for example. It is a three deminsional world. At what depth did they explore? Why would oil companies explore for oil in places where it could not possibly be extracted for less than say $70 dollars a barrel when the price until this new century was usually down in the $20 or $30 per barrel range (sometimes less)?

Your sentence,
Virtually all the earth and the continental shelf have been explored. Why Roger, do you think discoveries have been dropping?

First, I would need proof of the first half of your statement. If you mean by "explored" explored using the most up to date technical and economic models, using current oil prices as what dictates economically recoverable oil, then I simply don't accept it without proof. Period.

Why have discoveries been dropping? I have made the case, as have many others in the industry, that exploration in the 1980's and '90's lapsed due to the extreme low price of oil and the dire financial situation of the oil industry post the 1982 price collapse. I would request any exploration geologist who would do so to come on TOD and tell us that the oil companies were spending any measurable amount of money on oil exploration in that period. We are about 15 years behind on exploration, period.

The smaller field size....the reasons for which are obvious. The areas with the largest potential finds (Canada, offshore Africa and offshore South America somewhat excepted) are now off limits to Western oil companies (Arabia and OPEC areas and Russia, plus Venesuala). And sure enough, sizable finds are being found in Canada, and offshore Africa and offshore South America...we will know in the next 15 years if there is real finds of large size or not....my argument stands, for now, we simply do not know.

Why am I being so adament about this argument, which I make with some regularity on TOD and other forums?

Am I refuting Peak Oil, am I a Cornucopian? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. But I am deeply concerned about the possibility of false alarms. I saw this happen in the 1970's, when people poured investment into commodities and oil, with the belief that they would go forever up in price, and were wiped out. When the alternative energy industry collapsed and was abandoned. We are now rediscovering ideas that were well on their way to commercialization 30 years ago, but were left as dusty reports on corporate and university shelves when the oil price collapsed.

After 1982, people regarded concern about oil consumption as the mark of an uninformed boob, still living in the 1970's. You might as well have went out in an afro and polyester bell bottoms as be associated with concern about oil depletion in the 1980's and '90's. But oil depletion was STILL occuring, year after year. The false alarmists simply made it seem like a joke issue.

I am simply begging for common sense. The Peak Oil cause has achieved it's dream. It is now on te public agenda. I am begging for those who speak for this cause to use restraint. I will again quote Mr. Findley, the geologist I linked in the first of my posts....

"Oil wells run dry and with it, tax dollars. And to the users of oil, he encourages conservation and other kinds of energy, including nuclear energy.

“We do have a lot of oil left to find,“ he said. “But our demand worldwide is increasing so rapidly, at some point our supply is going to flatten out.”

Findley worries about a crisis, where demand for oil, especially foreign oil, is significantly greater than the supply.

“At that point, it is going to be too late,” he said. “We need to start today to do everything we can to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil.”

Is this man refuting Peak Oil? No. But he is not claiming he knows exactly when it will occur. He is not claiming he knows exactly how much oil is left to find. He is simply begging for some level of modesty in what we think we know. And he is begging for caution, for conservation, for alternatives, without making an ass of himself with unfounded assertions.

Why is that considered so unacceptable?

If we have another oil price collapse and burst of new oil discovery (and this is NOT impossible) after we have seen a militant "peak oil now" agenda of catastrophic collapse and failure pushed in schools, governments and the minds of individuals, we will see the whole idea of peak oil so discredited that no one, NO ONE will sacrifice to reduce oil consumption or pay for alternatives in the future. We will leave ourselves defenseless.

We must be ready for both peak soon and or peak later. Either could be the case. We simply have no way to know.

Ron, I have made my case. Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of the "newbies" who arrive here daily. It is the same case exactly that I have made so many times since I have been here at TOD. That is the other rhetorical trick used here, to make one repeat their case over and over again by flooding them with oppositon to points that have been already clearly stated. The idea is that anyone who does not accept with absolute conviction the dejection and doomerism scenario will finally get bored and give up repeating well known opposing arguments.

This leaves me with my final question: Why is so important to destroy any acceptance of the possibility of options, alternatives and national and world survival as a modern technical world? Why is that such an important agenda? Except for the neo-primitivist anarchist, who could possibly benefit by the constant and ever more increasing push of the dejectionist/doomerist agenda? Who?

If you want to answer my post, answer that question, and do not whip up red herrings, Ron, because that is becoming an essential question to thinking persons. Thank you for your time.

RC