Crude Oil as a Sustainable Resource?
 

I found this very interesting article over on BITOG, explaining a bit about how crude oil may be produced by geologic forces rather than organic. Definitely worth a read regardless of where you stand.

HERE

wishful thinking

Rather than your flavor? How dare I!

yes, every other theory leading up to or revolving around it was disproved, but this one must be true anyway!!! Likewise, when I flew to asia and back this summer my sight wasn't limited by the curve of the earth but by air diffusing and refracting the light.

How bout this theory, mass extinctions have happened more than once and there's been more than two geologic ages ('now' and 'dinosaurs') in the last 4 billion years and thus there's more than one layer of oil. we pump one layer out, the now empty space rearranges itself and new supplys are leaked in.

Do ya have any more on the reformation of methane into crude via high temperature/pressure? I tried googling and couldn't find anything.

Some things here...

Google

I had posted something related to this in the peak oil thread....

In General western geologists follow the biotic theory. Russia and a few other countries follow the abiotic theory. The Russians have had some success with finding oil based on their theory. But years ago, we all but laughed at the Russian geologists when they brought their theory forward. Now, they're really not talking.

In any case - a renewable resource does not mean it's sustainable ;) That's not to say the title isn't misleading...

Those seem to be about only methane/formation/extraction, not conversion of methane to crude. Got anything else?

Your post is probably what made that article catch my eye. ;)

Who's to say it isn't produced both ways? And who's can say it isn't happening at all? Since nobody has yet developed an anal scope to the world and actually had a peek, it's all educated guessing anyway. Since there are so many things about how things work that we don't yet know I'd say it's simple parochialism to deny it happening. Time will tell, but we may not be here for the headlines.

And "sustainable" arguments may just be quibbling.

Your guess is as good as mine for keywords to search on. Mix and match. Most good stuff is in the first ten hits, but sometimes the nugget is buried around 15-20.

You are asking proof of a negative? Prove that invisible pink unicorns didn't create the universe.

Or prove that oil beneficieries arent bringing this up to sow confusion and buy time and make more money and sell out the next generation.

Or prove that someone who hides behind a flag isn't a pedofile.

There is no solid evidence that oil is sustainable that I know of. Lots of crap in google from wishful thinkers though. Is crap your preferred flavor?

"There is no solid evidence that oil is sustainable that I know of." - Skew(ed)be

That would be my guess, too.

No one can - only because that's not how the academic and scientific communities work. Evidence is the burden of the person/group making a claim. In any case - and as I said earlier and in the other thread. It's a mainly western theory versus a Russian (et. al.) theory. Up until circa 2000, most oil was found using the biogenic theory (certain regions have a certain geological record conducive to oil production). Around 2000, Russia started finding oil in areas that were unlikely to contain oil, following the bio theory. But because we all but laughed at them and their theory (and not willing to share our info) - they're not willing to give up their now proprietary (perhaps not the correct adjective) data.

Sustainable and renewable are very very different things. Sustainability is dependent on consumption (among other things). Fishing is a perfect example. Fish are a renewable food resource, but with overfishing etc. - it's not sustainable. I believe that relatively recently we put one specie of dolphin on the extinct list - while it wasn't a resource, it's another example of our ability to wipe out other species. Technically, the bio theory (fossil fuel) oil is a renewable resource - it just takes millions of years, after the correct conditions, to produce. But I highly doubt anyone is going to claim oil as a sustainable resource simply because of that :p

Trebuchet - Assuming it's real and happening, its renewing. Thus could be called renewable, even if not strictly how people think of that word today. Perhaps a change to the old word or a new word would be in order. Not my call.

I understand the difference between sustainable and renewable. Since abiotic oil is still not widely proven or explored, one couldn't say whether it is or isn't sustainable at any given rate. But since it hasn't been widely explored, it may be more renewable, thus more sustainable, than some might think.

Or not...

One of my professors has done leading research in this feild. It is predicted that if we continue to fish the oceans the way we currently do as of 2006 that by 2048 the oceans will have no sea life, only small organisms and plancton.

If you sold petroleum, it would be to your benefit to say that it isn't renewable or sustainable to maintain the market prices as they are, or push them higher.

Interesting read...Thanks! :thumbup:

I tried but there's nothing on methane->crude. Any ideas?

It seems the main thing against the abiogenetic petroleum production is the fact that biogenetic petroleum production has been scientifically proven.

That means nothing.

To be scientifically proven merely means that no evidence has been found YET that contradicts a theory. And it seems the evidence for abiogenetic petroleum production contradicts the previously proven biogenetic petroleum production.

I don't believe it has to be one way or the other. I think there are great quantities of both, it's just that we've been looking for one type forever and haven't hardly begun searching where the other is found.

Crude Oil - Bubblin' Crude
Crude Oil Two - Abiogenic, Who Knew?
I can't wait for the next sequel.


Time will tell. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...default/35.gif

I'm sorry, what evidence of Abiogenic oil production is there?

If you look for it you will find it. I'm not gonna get in another p***ng match with you, Skewb. Do your own homework.

But you have presented no case? You say there is evidence but cannot produce it?!? I've done my homework, how about you?

I dare say you have low standards for evidence if you have found any, and that takes us right back to wishful thinking.

Probably not the worst assumption, we'd be cutting out the middle man energy wise, eating only plants and herbivores.

eventually we will be down to only humans, then what do we eat?

Soylent green.

I 'presented a case' by posting the original article. I'm not here to defend to the death, or prove incontrovertibly, anything. Certainly, I don't believe there is enough proof for some people, anyway.

I'm not here to argue. I only wished to share. If you want to argue about it you'll have to start without me.

Will

Imagine that, an article from WND isn't worth defending :)

No, arguing with you isn't worth the time.

Look, you post this junk and act like it is true by default. I can't prove it, but I still find giving hope to continued overconsumption so grossly irresponsible on so many accounts that I cannot begin to understand why anyone would WANT to perpetuate such unproven things that only serve to muddy the water.

It's just putting full faith in Russian claims :rolleyes: There is no source of data available - other than what the Russians are claiming :thumbdown: It could very well be complete BS - because the burden of proof goes to the country that doesn't want to share their information. There is, in fact, nothing to defend other than speculation and unverified reporting :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

what proof is there that biogenic is correct? abiogenic seems more plausible with fewer special circumstances having to be present.

As I recall, the article began with , "About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana..." There are Russians in the woodpile, but they are only part of it. If you guys want to pooh-pooh everything that runs counter to your version of how the world works, that's up to you.

I was only pointing out an interesting article, was NOT acting like it was true by default, and thought it would be a good read of something not of the normal "we humans are ruining everything by being alive and the best thing we could do for Mother Earth is to all commit mass suicide" venue.:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Gotta love those thumbs down. They add so much that can't be inferred by intelligent readers.

They've invested the most - AND have stated they've had the most results based on finding oil from the theory. We have experience with oil popping up out of what we thought was depleted stores. Predicting where you can drill and find oil and oil resurfacing in a depleted well are two very different things (the latter being luck and the former apparently taking the results of significant research).

It's not that it's poo - it's that there isn't any decent data available... Not to mention that the people that have the data have said they wont share. It's kinda like you coming here asking for how to get better FE - and me saying I know, but I won't share :thumbdown:

Believe me, I'd like to know what they found... I personally don't support/accept either theory - but it's clear our consumption is not sustainable. I also accept there's no evidence of the mechanism that is gravity - theres theories, but each one is just as acceptable as others given the math tools we have today...

It is an interesting read - misleading in the title, but interesting. You were not acting like it was true by default - but you've also been incredibly defensive of the article itself (which is typical of almost any OP when someone has a less than supportive opinion) ;)

Hello -

From my POV, even if the Abiogenic theory were proven to be true, the risk of the Global Warming theory not being true is too dangerous to ignore.

With that said, I got the following links from this Google text :

russian oil formation theory

Abiogenic petroleum origin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin


Russia is far from oil's peak - Sep 27, 2007
https://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/II27Ag01.html

The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin
https://gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm

Abiotic Theory
https://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html

CarloSW2

Trebuchet, I meant nothing personally. I believe you to be a gentleman and a scholar. If the hair on the back of my neck was getting up, it's only at the closed mindedness of certain individuals. I'm not saying anything is fact, nor alluding to the certainty of the article I sponsored. But I have to roll my eyes at all those that believe their position is the final word on the subject.

I personally have no idea which, if any, side is correct. Nor does anyone else. Most of the arguing is just a bunch of political preening and new age poppycock, I believe...nothing I feel like fighting over.

Live frugally and most of the problems of the world (real and perceived) would go away.

There isn't a such thing as scientifically proven AFAIK. Mathematically proven otoh, sure... Theories in science becomes laws after there's been mountains of evidence that they are consistent and nothing stating they aren't. Theories are just that. Theories. They'll have some supporting evidence, and sufficient evidence to show that they aren't the case hasn't been found. :thumbup:

Global warming is all interesting as long as it wasn't occurring on other planets in our solar system that don't have gases from humans burning hydrocarbons.

Additionally, what should the Earth's temperature actually be?

Yes, I'll agree with Mr Incredible that living frugally would help a lot of stuff.

Beyond the science of this, the economics are very interesting as some in control of petroleum are, can, or may be in better control of the idea that crude will "run out" at some point, and that allows them to control the price. OPEC can control the price strictly by increasing or decreasing production regardless of the actual availability of crude that hasn't been moved to useful locations.

Of course, if you knew how to produce the oil in this manner, or one could license the opportunity to develop it this way, it would change the face of the petroleum market.

GW is indeed THE interesting topic. recently heard on the radio yet another scientific study disproving it. both sides claim irrefutable evidence instead of focusing on pollution, the REAL issue.

Everyone agrees that the earth is warming, the debate is a discussion of how much of the warming we (humans) are responsible for.

Its going to be hard for either side to "prove" that humans are responsible for x% of the warming we are observing and that the other x% is part of a natural cycle.

There is always a lot of confusion about the whole hypothesis, theory, law issue in science.

A hypothesis is a testable statement.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been experimentally tested over and over and passed- it also explains the "why" behind a phenomenon. Ex. Gravitational theory explains why things "fall" toward things with more mass

A law is an occurrence that has been observed over and over again. It simply explains how something behaves (ex. Boyle's Law in chemistry) but offers no explanation as to why Another example is the law of gravity- which just states that things "fall" toward other things with more mass.

Just because something is a "theory" doesn't mean its in serious doubt or hasn't yet graduated up to becoming a law. Chemistry teachers still teach about protons, electrons and neutrons even though this is just "atomic theory". Personally, I like learning theories better than laws because you learn the "why" and the logic behind the phenomenon.

As has been said on this thread- everyone should agree that burning less fuel is a good thing (cheaper on the pocketbook and it emits less pollution).