Oil - is the earth running out or making more?

It never even occurred to me to question oil being a non-renewable resource; but I stumbled across this article (and many like it) just a little while ago. It's an interesting theory that I wanted to share.
_________________________


"While conventional science has believed since the mid 1700’s that oil is the byproduct of dead dinosaurs, ferns and trees being processed underground for millions of years and is therefore being depleted on a daily basis, a contradictory theory by Dr. Thomas Gold, the founder, and for over 20 years, the director of the Cornell Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, originally presented in 1980 and subsequently published in his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels in 1999, suggests the earth is, in essence, a huge oil factory, manufacturing oil deep below the surface and delivering it, through naturally occurring faults, up into oil reservoirs close enough to the surface for us to tap into and extract.

Dr. Gold’s theory suggests that, contrary to current accepted beliefs, the earth has a vast resource of oil deep in the earth, perhaps 100 times what is generally believed to exist and that these resources will continue to migrate upward to accessible levels while being replaced at the source by yet more oil making it a renewable resource....

Proponents of the “oil as a renewable resource”, more commonly known as the “Abiogenic Petroleum Origin” unanimously point to the Eugene Island Block 330 Field as proof that Dr. Gold’s theory is correct. Eugene Island is a submerged mountain located about 80 miles off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico. The terrain of Eugene Island reveals deep fissures and faults. The area is quite active and these fissures spontaneously belch gas and oil. According to proponents, the oil platform designated Eugene Island 330 began producing approximately 15,000 bbl of oil per day in the early 1970s and by 1989, the flow, following expectations, had dwindled to 4,000 bbls per day. Then, suddenly, production ran back up to 13,000 bbls a day. Additionally, estimated reserves jumped from 60 to 400 million barrels. As if that wasn’t odd enough, geologists discovered that the oil then being extracted was different in composition and age than what was being recovered previously. Although there seems to be some disagreement as to the actual numbers, there is no doubt that the Eugene reservoir was being refilled from a deeper source.

Further investigation by geologists revealed that the oil reservoir at Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself from “some continuous source miles below the earth’s surface.” Seismic records confirmed the existence of a deep fault and the evidence of oil flowing upward through it into the Eugene 330 oil reservoir."

read the whole article here...http://alt-energystocks.com/blog/2008/07/02/oil-is-the-earth-running-out-or-making-more/
 
That reminds me, I need to put some 'gas' in the car before I go out - shit, wonder if the petrol station is open today:eek:

Jukebox Jury
 
That reminds me, I need to put some 'gas' in the car before I go out - shit, wonder if the petrol station is open today:eek:

Jukebox Jury

I think almost all of the stores are open today.
I hope so, because I gotta get out and buy some food or I'll starve to death on New Years Day.
 
Further investigation by geologists revealed that the oil reservoir at Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself from “some continuous source miles below the earth’s surface.” Seismic records confirmed the existence of a deep fault and the evidence of oil flowing upward through it into the Eugene 330 oil reservoir."

Very interesting, thanks! Wikipedia has a good article describing the scientific evidence for and against Abiogenic petroleum (though pointing out it's a minority opinion), and another article that makes the Eugene Island example seem like a probable anomaly and not by itself positive proof of Abiogenic petroleum.

Either way, even if abiogenic petroleum is real, we still wouldn't know how much and how quickly it's produced... or whether it would rise to a level that our extraction methods can reach it. Apparently the earth's rock is far less yielding and porous the deeper you get.

Do note that, even though Thomas Gold had a variety of correct theories, the bulk of his work was in fields other than geology, he was not a geology specialist. Abiogenic petroleum is a theory that is not yet scientifically proven, though it sounds deserving of study.

Last, even if petroleum is unlimited, it's fairly well supported that its use contributes to global warming and thus it's continued use isn't "sustainable" long term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Island_block_330_oil_field

"Richard Heinberg provides his own (different) figures. While the rate went up again in the early 1990s along with the overall estimated recoverable petroleum, the rate has since declined.

"The source of additional oil was analyzed as migrating through faults from deeper and older formations below of probable Jurassic and Early Cretaceous age. The oil contains biomarkers closely related to other very old oils and was long trapped in deep formations.

"Eugene Island 330 has been cited as an example of abiogenic petroleum origin, which holds that petroleum reservoirs are continuously replenished from inorganic sources deep within the Earth. However, Eugene Island 330's fame comes precisely from its status as an unusual anomaly, rather than being typical of the other 40,000 developed oil fields, and most petroleum scientists believe that the depletion profile is adequately explained by replenishment from deeper reservoirs of normal biologically derived petroleum."
 
Last edited:
Firstly, if abiogenic petroleum exists it's definitely not being produced in significant quantities, compared to our current consumption. We're using it far, far quicker than the earth is supposedly making it.

Secondly, if I could be bothered I'm sure 20 minutes on the internet would find links between Dr. Gold some oil-based company.

Out of curiosity, why do you seem so desperate to contravene any theory which suggests we might actually need to take some responsibility for the planet and consume less?
 
Last edited:
Firstly, if abiogenic petroleum exists it's definitely not being produced in significant quantities, compared to our current consumption. We're using it far, far quicker than the earth is supposedly making it.

Secondly, if I could be bothered I'm sure 20 minutes on the internet would find links between Dr. Gold some oil-based company.

Out of curiosity, why do you seem so desperate to contravene any theory which suggests we might actually need to take some responsibility for the planet and consume less?

It's true that it would be highly irresponsible and inconsistent to act on an unproven minority opinion like this. Especially when it comes from the side that refuses to act on the largely proven majority opinion, saying more study is needed. And that petroleum use produces greenhouse gasses.

At this point EVERYONE, including Sarah Palin, George Bush, the US EPA and most of the dissenting minority scientists, agrees that global warming is real, and the only dissent is whether human sources are a majority or minority contributor.

And as I've said here before, what difference does that make at all? If there was an asteroid hurtling towards the Earth, hopefully the conservatives wouldn't be debating whether humans were responsible for causing the asteroid, before acting.
 
It's true that it would be highly irresponsible and inconsistent to act on an unproven minority opinion like this. Especially when it comes from the side that refuses to act on the largely proven majority opinion, saying more study is needed. And that petroleum use produces greenhouse gasses.

At this point EVERYONE, including Sarah Palin, George Bush, the US EPA and most of the dissenting minority scientists, agrees that global warming is real, and the only dissent is whether human sources are a majority or minority contributor.

And as I've said here before, what difference does that make at all? If there was an asteroid hurtling towards the Earth, hopefully the conservatives wouldn't be debating whether humans were responsible for causing the asteroid, before acting.

I always just think it's interesting that the same people who don't want to believe global warming is caused by humans are the same people who support clearcuts, dams, and other things which are undeniably bad for the earth. These people don't care about the world, if it effects their lifestyle in any way. It figures they'd want to deny anything which might imply they had to change their lifestyle.

I hate this culture.
 
It never even occurred to me to question oil being a non-renewable resource; but I stumbled across this article (and many like it) just a little while ago. It's an interesting theory that I wanted to share.
_________________________

Firstly, if abiogenic petroleum exists it's definitely not being produced in significant quantities, compared to our current consumption. We're using it far, far quicker than the earth is supposedly making it.

Secondly, if I could be bothered I'm sure 20 minutes on the internet would find links between Dr. Gold some oil-based company.

Out of curiosity, why do you seem so desperate to contravene any theory which suggests we might actually need to take some responsibility for the planet and consume less?

Slow down there, little buddy.
Go back and read what I wrote. I came across the article online and thought it was interesting.
I was taught that oil was a non-renewable resource somewhere close to the first day of Science class. I don't know if it's true, and I'm not saying it is.
Are you too close minded to read it and think, "hmm....interesting....never even thought about that before."

I always just think it's interesting that the same people who don't want to believe global warming is caused by humans are the same people who support clearcuts, dams, and other things which are undeniably bad for the earth. These people don't care about the world, if it effects their lifestyle in any way. It figures they'd want to deny anything which might imply they had to change their lifestyle.

I hate this culture.

And there you go, jumping to conclusions again. Good luck with life, kiddo.
 
Slow down there, little buddy.
Go back and read what I wrote. I came across the article online and thought it was interesting.
I was taught that oil was a non-renewable resource somewhere close to the first day of Science class. I don't know if it's true, and I'm not saying it is.
Are you too close minded to read it and think, "hmm....interesting....never even thought about that before."

Okay, I genuinely apologise. I didn't read what you'd written at the top of the article.


And there you go, jumping to conclusions again. Good luck with life, kiddo.

Thanks, you too.
 
What I pictured when I read this, about oil deep in the earth, was the hole that would have to be dug to reach it. It's clear that these things are political, just looking at this thread. That is unfortunate because we really need the facts and not some spin.

The oil companies spend a lot of money doing research to find oil, so if this oil was economically viable to reach, I'm not sure why they would be trying to drill off the coast of California, or to destroy the wilderness of Alaska to get it. Maybe that is just easier than getting to these reserves?

Or maybe the price of oil, like the price of other necessities, is controlled and kept at the highest level that consumers are willing to pay.

I think that even if we had enough oil for the indefinite future, we should still seek alternatives, because the production of oil and the results of its use are bad for the environment.

2duhwtd.jpg


2zswgba.jpg


5zllxg.jpg



We think in the short-term and use the planet like we own it. We are just borrowing it, and should leave it the same or better than we found it.
 
Tags
oilcrisismagick
Back
Top Bottom