Author Topic: Is oil a replenishable resource? (Read 19375 times)

Desertdog · « **on:** February 07, 2008, 02:53:39 PM »

Is oil a replenishable resource?
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 2/7/2008 1:00:00 PM
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=66565

Author and investigative journalist Jerome Corsi says he agrees with a recently published article that refutes the notion that oil is a fossil fuel and is dwindling in supply.

Dr. Jerome Corsi, co-author of Black Gold Stanglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, says he believes in the abiotic theory for the origin of oil -- which asserts oil is a natural product the earth generates constantly rather than a fossil fuel derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.

Corsi says a recent article in Science Magazine cites a University of Washington study that supports that contention. But he argues that oil companies want consumers to continue to think oil is a fossil fuel and is being used up.

"Let's have the oil companies start telling the truth about oil -- that it is abiotic, that it's plentifully available," demands Corsi. "Let's have them build more refineries and let's get more supply into the system, so we don't have to pay these exorbitant prices that are completely unjustified."

And the journalist claims there is another little secret the oil companies do not want people to know. "The oil companies fund the environmentalists. They're both on the same side of wanting to restrict supply," he adds. "When the oil companies are able to make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, they're not going to come along and tell the American people that oil is abundant, that we are never going to run out of it, that we're finding increasing resources."

According to Corsi, the Energy Information Administration says there are in fact 1.4-trillion barrels of oil worldwide, despite the fact that consumption has doubled since 1970.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2008, 04:33:51 PM »

I have seen that theory. It is interesting.

Balog · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2008, 04:35:03 PM »

Any scientific evidence for that? Links maybe?

charby · « **Reply #3 on:** February 07, 2008, 04:40:47 PM »

I've read about the Russian Scientist's theory on oil, very similar. I wish I could remember the name but he concluded that oil comes from deep within the earth and gets pushed close to the surface near impact sites of space bodies.

I can sort of see their point because for the life of me, how does one explain the oil found way off shore? I can see the fossil fuel theory of oil on old land masses and being buried underneath layers of sedimentary rock.

mfree · « **Reply #4 on:** February 07, 2008, 05:28:44 PM »

There are millions of tons of carbonate rocks undergoing subduction as we speak, and all that extra hydrogen and carbon has to go somewhere.

Once I thought about that, I think I might just buy into the abiotic theory.

CAnnoneer · « **Reply #5 on:** February 07, 2008, 07:56:59 PM »

I need to look at the proposed chemistry. Off the top of my head, it is difficult to believe since most of the crust is silicon dioxide and dialuminum trioxide. If the carbonate rocks and water are to produce hydrocarbons, something must be getting oxidized to sequester the oxygen but the silicon and aluminum are already fully oxidized. Maybe metals from the mantle?? Do we have a resident geologist here?

Bogie · « **Reply #6 on:** February 07, 2008, 09:02:46 PM »

Well, at one time... But I'd probably be giggling too much...

I suspect that the killer on this one will be "geological time." A century isn't even blink of an eye.

As for subsea deposits? Guys, the world changes... and if you are one of the folks who thinks that the fossils of sea-dwelling critters that are found in mountains were seeded during some creationistic spasm...

Iain · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2008, 02:43:33 AM »

One of the abiotic/abiogenic oil proposers argues that there is more bacterial life deep under the surface than there is life on the surface. He's quite well respected in some (other) fields.

This is another issue where the lay person should be very careful about seizing on to a theory that has very very little scientific backing.

Balog · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2008, 03:41:12 AM »

Quote from: Iain on February 08, 2008, 01:43:33 AM

This is another issue where the lay person should be very careful about seizing on to a theory that has very very little scientific backing.

Like anthropogenic global warming? [/rimshot]

HankB · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2008, 04:03:44 AM »

It's very interesting . . . I don't know if I'm ready to jump in and accept it, but it's worth closer scrutiny.

Here's a little idle speculation . . .

I was just reading an article on methane hydrates that litter the ocean floor - supposedly there's a tremendous amount of methane locked up there, spread over many millions of square miles. If it were to be silted over, that would sequester a lot of hydrocarbons under the silt layer . . . if this is a process that continues over geologic time, who knows what the result would be? (I don't.)

Iain · « **Reply #10 on:** February 08, 2008, 04:05:47 AM »

Quote from: Balog on February 08, 2008, 02:41:12 AM

Like anthropogenic global warming? [/rimshot]

I think you've just hoisted yourself rather than me. If you think AGW has little scientific backing I've got some low lying land in Norfolk to sell you.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #11 on:** February 08, 2008, 04:26:10 AM »

Saturn's moon of Titan has seas of hydrocarbons, liquid methane or ethane. There might be glaciers of acetylene, springs of solvents... it's all covered with hydrocarbons. That was most certainly abiotic.

Why must we assume Earth developed any differently?

Azrael256 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 08, 2008, 04:53:09 AM »

Quote

Why must we assume Earth developed any differently?

We musn't on a basic level, however, there is a vast difference between a five-atom simple hydrocarbon and crude oil. The fact is that the Earth and Titan did develop differently. The distribution of elements throughout the solar system varies based on location, and we're a good hundred million miles closer to the sun. Methane is a gas in our climate, a liquid in Titan's.

When actual scientists study the issue and make a determination based on available data, I will listen. Since this fellow started bashing oil companies in his first sentence, I'm going to have to remind everybody that it's shiny-side out.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #13 on:** February 08, 2008, 05:28:45 AM »

Quote from: Azrael256 on February 08, 2008, 03:53:09 AM

Quote

Why must we assume Earth developed any differently?

We musn't on a basic level, however, there is a vast difference between a five-atom simple hydrocarbon and crude oil. The fact is that the Earth and Titan did develop differently. The distribution of elements throughout the solar system varies based on location, and we're a good hundred million miles closer to the sun. Methane is a gas in our climate, a liquid in Titan's.

When actual scientists study the issue and make a determination based on available data, I will listen. Since this fellow started bashing oil companies in his first sentence, I'm going to have to remind everybody that it's shiny-side out.

The abiotic and sub-surface archaea origins of oil may well be quackery, but IMO, are still worth serious scientific study to determine if they are or not.

And you're definitely right, that Titan is in the deep freeze of the outer Solar System as a moon of Saturn, and light hydrocarbon fractions can exist as liquids and higher density gas there. However, scientists are so interested in Titan as they believe it's a model for the Earth's primordial atmosphere before life and free oxygen began changing it. It's true that methane has a lower molecular weight than most components of air, but the Earth's gravity is also higher than Titan's. It's also reasonable to assume that when the Earth accreted, large amounts of methane never managed to escape from in between the rocks etc. The Earth, while puny as compared to stars and gas giant planets, it is still a very, very, very large object, massing on the order of the sextillions of tons while it would have been just a fraction of a fraction the amount of trapped methane would be substantial. Not all that methane or other hydrocarbon would have been able to percolate out, even over geologic timespans.

Again, we're in agreement that serious science needs to make the determination, but I'm also suspicious if it will get such proper treatment, as both the petrochemical industry and the environmental/global warming movement both have vested interests that would be in opposition to such theories being proved true.

charby · « **Reply #14 on:** February 08, 2008, 05:43:19 AM »

Quote from: Bogie on February 07, 2008, 08:02:46 PM

As for subsea deposits? Guys, the world changes... and if you are one of the folks who thinks that the fossils of sea-dwelling critters that are found in mountains were seeded during some creationistic spasm...

I know but its hard fathom for me. I'm a rock hound, I like to look for fossils and so forth, great think about living in Iowa is that there are tons of locations to go look for fossils (mostly crinoids and bivalves) from when a sea covered middle America during the Paleozoic period.

I think of the seas and how deep they are and that they probably have always been seas except during the period of snowball earth, I also look at the depth of drilling required to extract oil and where precambrian rocks are, just makes it hard to comprehend.

There has been some limited oil exploration in Iowa and a couple wells have produced oil, not much and of low quality, figure it is seepage off the Illinois dome, but one would thing with all the dead critters that died when there was a sea covering the place that there would be more oil to be found.

-C

geronimotwo · « **Reply #15 on:** February 08, 2008, 05:57:00 AM »

Quote

Corsi says a recent article in Science Magazine cites a University of Washington study that supports that contention. But he argues that oil companies want consumers to continue to think oil is a fossil fuel and is being used up.

i always thought it would be best for oil industries to let people believe that oil would go on forever. rather than allowing people to think that they only have a few years left, allowing them to gradually wean themselves from oil and switch to a new technology. that way when oil does suddenly run out, they (oil industries) will be able to market and supply whatever replacement technology they have invested in.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #16 on:** February 08, 2008, 06:14:19 AM »

Quote from: geronimotwo on February 08, 2008, 04:57:00 AM

Quote

Corsi says a recent article in Science Magazine cites a University of Washington study that supports that contention. But he argues that oil companies want consumers to continue to think oil is a fossil fuel and is being used up.

i always thought it would be best for oil industries to let people believe that oil would go on forever. rather than allowing people to think that they only have a few years left, allowing them to gradually wean themselves from oil and switch to a new technology. that way when oil does suddenly run out, they (oil industries) will be able to market and supply whatever replacement technology they have invested in.

A state of "Constant Crisis" would be nothing new to business or politics.

Tecumseh · « **Reply #17 on:** February 08, 2008, 07:30:55 AM »

IT would make more sense to switch to a renewable energy source. I would suggest electric cars and trying to get people to become solar dependent. If there is no sun, then you have big problems.

vernal45 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 08, 2008, 07:31:44 AM »

I work in the oil patch. I laugh at this crap of a "limited supply of oil". Let me tell you there is more than enough to go around, there are fields in the US and worldwide that are not being drilled for one reason or another. If we opened up 2 fields in the US, Alaska is one, we could be off of middle east oil in 20 years.

Tecumseh · « **Reply #19 on:** February 08, 2008, 07:36:50 AM »

I have read that ANWAR will sustain us for about 2 years or so.

At the current rates of consumption we cannot continue to maintain our way of life in my opinion. It would make sense to start looking for better uses at energy.

vernal45 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 08, 2008, 07:48:55 AM »

Quote

It would make sense to start looking for better uses at energy

I did not say we should not look for better / other uses of energy. I said not to be fooled.

Desertdog · « **Reply #21 on:** February 08, 2008, 09:17:10 AM »

Quote

I have read that ANWAR will sustain us for about 2 years or so.

At the current rates of consumption we cannot continue to maintain our way of life in my opinion. It would make sense to start looking for better uses at energy.

I believe that that 2-year supply is based on using the oil from ANWAR as the sole source of oil for USA consumption, not as just another portion added to the present supply.

I do believe we need to search for alterative energy sources and increased efficiences, but I do not believe the Government should mandate it. Higher prices will cause us to be more energy conscience and find ways to conserve.

Declaration Day · « **Reply #22 on:** February 08, 2008, 09:36:28 AM »

Quote from: Tecumseh on February 08, 2008, 06:30:55 AM

IT would make more sense to switch to a renewable energy source. I would suggest electric cars and trying to get people to become solar dependent. If there is no sun, then you have big problems.

I'm all for renewable energy research, but I'm not convinced alternative energy could sustain us in our current lifestyles of materialism and convenience. IMO it's workable but would require a much smaller population, and we'd have to acclimate ourselves to working harder for less.

One of the obstacles to alternative energy is that the machines / equipment used to capture or generate it are dependent on oil for their design, materials, construction and maintenance. I believe that is a larger problem than developing the technology for alternative energy.

ilbob · « **Reply #23 on:** February 08, 2008, 10:13:31 AM »

the plain facts are that most of the energy shortage is self inflicted.

nuclear energy is relatively safe and economical, but not PC.

lots of places we know there is a lot of oil, but are not allowed to drill.

coal is a safe and economical alternative, especially for power plants, but its also not PC.

has not been a new refinery built in 40 some years in the US. guess why?

lots of tar sand available in Canada. maybe as much oil there as has ever been taken out of the ground.

known coal reserves in the US are 100 years worth of oil usage. at current oil prices, it is economical to convert coal to gasoline.

its mostly not about technology, or economics, or even availability.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 08, 2008, 11:36:27 AM »

I would like to see research and efforts in alternative energy as well, but I don't think are there or will be truly there in the near future. Opening up the oil supplies by opening up development of sources and more processing would help the current situation.

Also, if the Federal Gov wanted to do one thing that would actually be "regulation of interstate commerce", they would stop all the states and EPA from mandating locally modified blends of gas.

News:

Author Topic: Is oil a replenishable resource? (Read 19375 times)