What If Oil Lasts Forever? Fossil fuels may not be finite. This'd be a miracle—and a nightmare

National Journal ^ | April 25, 2013 | Charles C. Mann, The Atlantic

[truth_seeker]

“Sure you do. Tar is a petrochemical substance. If the dino theory is true, there shouldn’t be any tar seeps at the furthest depths of the oceans.

If the dino theory is true, we ought to find oil deposits at the tops of the tallest mountains - right alongside fossil sea shells.”

Not just dinosaurs, but also other forms of organic material, carried along the rivers and deposited.

The material eventually is covered over by layers of geologic material.

In Wyoming, above 5,000 ft. elevation there are oilfields, not far from 10,000 ft. mountains which have seashell fossils.

The strata have uplifted, shifted etc.

That is what they teach the geologists and reservoir engineers, and they have been finding the deposits, and producing them for over 100 years, all over the globe.

They look for certain types of geologic formations, below the surface. They use sophisticated methods of figuring out about the formations, to predict where to drill exploratory wells.

Some find what they are looking for, some fail.

If not what they have taught, used, all this time with success, what explanation do you have, in place of proven science and empirical results?

And for your alternative explanation, what tests have been made for the hypothesis, with what results?

I’m not claiming there could be no other sources for hydrocarbons. I’m asking for scientific proof with results.

[JRandomFreeper]

Texas is making a bunch of money out of gas that has nothing to do with oil. Or coal.

/johnny

[Gene Eric]

>> but the word they want to use is not “infinite”.

Disagree, especially if the lifetime of the potentially regenerative resource exceeds the frame of observation.

[Smokin' Joe]

If the temperature is too high, the oil breaks down and you get gas. We have that in the Winnipeg and Deadwood Formations up here in the Williston Basin, too.

Probably the clearest zonation like that happens in the Utica Shale Formation, where there are areas of "dry" gas (mostly methane), "wet" gas (methane with heavier gasses easily liquefied), and where oil and gas are found together.

If the thermal history isn't right, you don't get oil.

[dalereed]

“’So... what’s the “nightmare”?”

Only to green freaks!!!

Parrots of false crap pumped into their heads by the corrupt school system!!

[JRandomFreeper]

If the temperature is too high,

I'm going to be willing to bet that isn't a problem on Titan.

/johnny

[Smokin' Joe]

Back to the thought that without oxygen, you can’t break down the hydrocarbons at the surface. Different planet(oid), different rules. I bet there isn’t an ooze of fish poo at the bottom of the pond on Titan, either.

[GeronL]

Stock in Unicorn Toots would collapse

[JRandomFreeper]

I bet there isn’t an ooze of fish poo at the bottom of the pond on Titan, either.

After careful consideration, thinking about how hard it is to get rid of life here on Earf... I might take that bet.... What kind of odds?

/johnny

[Smokin' Joe]

You'd have to deliver proof. (8^D)

Now, stop and think.

First, off, that'd be some exotic sh*t, mannnn.

If you could get it, it be worth a fortune (someone out there would buy fish poo from Titan on ebay--beware of cheap imitations!.)

Considering fish poo from Titan would be proof of extraterrestrial life, and that might be the biotic link to the hydrocarbons on Titan...

It wouldn't matter, the guys in dark suits would impound it and look for the germ to end all life as we know it...and maybe succeed in finding it.

In the meantime, don't drink the methane, for all we know, fish ____ in it.

[Kozak]

Plate Techtonics.

[Defiant]

Then you are redefining the word “infinite” the way they are trying to redefine “marriage”. In your definition, “infinite” means something that humans can’t exhaust. I’d rather keep the actual meaning, and use another term to describe a resource that we have enough of for our foreseeable future.

[Gene Eric]

>> Then you are redefining the word “infinite” the way they are trying to redefine “marriage”.

Erroneous consequence and specious relation.

>> In your definition, “infinite” means something that

Baseless assertion.

My point is you cannot prove it’s not an infinite resource where we understand infinity to be something like n/0.

[Defiant]

All I am saying is "infinity is infinity". That is a tautology, but infinity is a concept that refers to something that never ends.

You are saying that infinity is conditioned upon the needs of humans. That is not what infinity is. But call it what you want. We are just arguing over words, not the amount of hydrocarbons available to humans, which we seem to agree about. Your need to support the theory of abiotic hydrocarbons by calling its supply "infinite" is simply exaggeration through misuse of the word infinite. It doesn't help your cause to be so irrational about it.

10 to the one millionth power is still not infinite. The universe itself is finite, at least as far as human perceptions are concerned. If that is true, then by definition, the supply of oil is also finite. But so far, it seems to be more than enough, and may well be regenerating within the earth. Us humans are studying that.

[Gene Eric]

>> You are saying that infinity is conditioned upon the needs of humans.

You’re going to have to work harder at putting words in my mouth.

>> 10 to the one millionth power is still not infinite.

Is it really necessary to stipulate that especially when I showed an infinite quotient?

>> The universe itself is finite,

Really? And you can prove that along what dimension?

[ShadowAce]

There’s no such thing as a “fossil fuel”

[Defiant]

Disagree, especially if the lifetime of the potentially regenerative resource exceeds the frame of observation.

You’re going to have to work harder at putting words in my mouth.

The above are the words I am putting in your mouth. Let's break it down, shall we?

"Lifetime of the potentially regenerative resource"=how long the resource lasts (although this is an odd way of putting it, since hydrocarbons do not have a life. Again, words used incorrectly, as with "infinity".

"exceeds the frame of observation"=is longer, temporally, than the time in which some unstated being (humans, I imagine) can observe it.

In English, that means that there will be hydrocarbons here longer than there will be humans. Maybe, maybe not, but that is not how "infinite" was used in the article, which is what I was referring to. In the article, the amount of oil, quantitatively, not temporally, available was described as infinite. I was merely pointing out the fallacious nature of that statement. You got a bug up your ass for no good reason, and introduced an argument against a point that I did not make.

To address your argument, I cannot agree that there will be hydrocarbons on earth for as long as humans (or any other being you might have been postulating) will be around to "observe" them. Who knows what we will be capable of in 1000 years, 100,000 years, one million years, and even, if we are so lucky, one billion years. It is entirely possible for a species to progress to the point of having control of the energy of a planet, a solar system, and a galaxy, and having the ability to use things in ways we cannot comprehend. Not saying it will happen, but not saying that it cannot happen either. We just don't know what we can do given eons of time. So to say that hydrocarbons will be around as long as there are humans makes a lot of assumptions that no one can claim to know right now.

Therefore, the point you actually made, which was not a counter to the point I made, but was some tangential point you seemed desperate to make, is false. And therefore, you have earned the coveted Sheldon Award:

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

It's that nasty See Oh Too, Al Gore's favorite gas.

Oh noooo!!!! Aaaaiiiieeee!!!!!

Sorry, that's the most panic and fear that I could muster. And I tried pretty hard.

[BereanBrain]

Nothing INSIDE the earth is infinite.

You need to go study logic. You constructed a “straw man” argument.

You won’t ever learn anything in discussions like you are conducting.

[Gene Eric]

>> The above are the words I am putting in your mouth.

I see.