Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Petroleum age is just beginning
Washington Times ^ | 8/15/03 | David Deming

Posted on 08/15/2003 9:37:43 AM PDT by DoctorMichael

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

It is hard to imagine how our grandparents and great-grandparents lived at the end of the 19th century. The United States was still largely a rural society, and the amenities we take for granted today were unknown then.

Most people lived on farms. Few Americans had running water, bathtubs, hot water, or flush toilets. Central heating, electricity and telephones were rare. There were no antibiotics. Infant mortality was high, and life expectancy was 30 years lower than it is today. For most people, educational opportunities were very limited. In 1890, only 5 percent of the eligible population attended high school.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abiogenic; blackout; discovery; energy; energylist; oil; seminalevent; thomasgold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: RightWhale
And if Mars is such a hot bead of hydrocarbon fractions, how appropriate that we should just be discovering this while Mars is at it closest to Earth ever; only some 23 million miles away! Reach out and touch a Martian hydrocarbon deposit with one of those new celestial drilling rigs!
61 posted on 08/17/2003 7:14:12 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Carbon is the 4th most common element. Mixed with the most common, hydrogen, we get hydrocarbons. Methane is arguably the most common hydrocarbon in our solar system. Much of the methane on earth is arguably not biological in origin.

What is your problem with the concept of non-biological methane?
62 posted on 08/17/2003 7:15:02 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Carbon is the 4th most common element. Mixed with the most common, hydrogen, we get hydrocarbons. Methane is arguably the most common hydrocarbon in our solar system. Much of the methane on earth is arguably not biological in origin.

I guess the next question is by what processes and under what conditions does carbon bond with hydrogen?

63 posted on 08/17/2003 8:00:38 PM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
bump
64 posted on 08/17/2003 8:01:59 PM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
I guess the next question is by what processes and under what conditions does carbon bond with hydrogen?
-WT-


Read Golds published theory, or his book.
65 posted on 08/17/2003 8:14:27 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Current tectonic theory holds that the trenches are created by plates receding from each other, not by colliding.

Uh, actually, no. Trenches are found where one plate is thrust under another. It's called a subduction zone. The western Pacific rim is the best example -- the volcanoes of Japan are caused by the Pacific plate being subducted beneath the Asian plate.

The plates recede from each other at either mid-ocean ridges (the most common case; example: the mid-Atlantic ridge) or a mid-continental rift (as in the east African rift valley).

66 posted on 08/18/2003 3:12:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
The process entails five steps: (1) Pulping and slurrying the organic feed with water. (2) Heating the slurry under pressure to the desired temperature. (3) Flashing the slurry to a lower pressure to separate the mixture. (4) Heating the slurry again (coking) to drive off water and produce light hydrocarbons. (5) Separating the end products.

How much energy does it take to create energy from this process?

67 posted on 08/18/2003 3:49:37 AM PDT by USMMA_83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Oil is by far the cheapest, most abundant, and cleanest source of energy we have.

And were it not for artificially high regulatory costs, nuclear energy would also be up there at the top for cheapest, most abundant, and cleanest. A greater reliance on nuclear would free up gas and oil for uses other than energy.
68 posted on 08/18/2003 4:15:28 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Well, I hadn't planned to read a treatise or book. Since you are on his side of this topic, I thought you might know enough to give a thumbnail sketch.

69 posted on 08/18/2003 4:50:12 AM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83
well you figure if this biomass process produces oil for $15@ barrel and the current price of oil is $30@ barrel--the energy consumption is going to be cost effective that creates the oil for $15 a Barrel.
70 posted on 08/18/2003 5:00:49 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
And were it not for artificially high regulatory costs, nuclear energy would also be up there at the top for cheapest, most abundant, and cleanest. A greater reliance on nuclear would free up gas and oil for uses other than energy.

But.........but..........some the greatest nuclear physicist minds in the world have warned us about nuclear power. Minds like the esteemed Drs. Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jackson Brown. {/sarcasm}

I agree with you.

71 posted on 08/18/2003 6:38:02 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (TAG! You're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Ha ha. Have you read "Before It's Too Late, A Scientist's Case for Nuclear Energy" by Bernard Cohen? It's pretty good.
This book by Dr. Bernard Cohen, a physics professor at the University of Pittsburg , is perhaps the best source of objective information about nuclear energy and its uses, problems, and benefits. Not being a part of the nuclear industry allows Dr. Cohen to objectively evaluate from a scientist's perspective virtually every issue surrounding the nuclear industry and the results may surprise you. We can not overstate the quality of this book.

72 posted on 08/18/2003 8:09:05 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus; tpaine; Rodney King; Straight Vermonter
Thomas Gold is right.

Let the naysayers keep jabbering it as we vacuum up the money from 6+ miles below. Scoffers can drill their shallow wells of denial and leave the rest to realists.

Extremely deep wells may yield giant new discoveries

73 posted on 08/18/2003 11:08:03 AM PDT by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
The story you link is about drilling sediments in the Gulf, which we already know to be petroleum-bearing (as hundreds of oil platforms now in the Gulf attest). This drilling has nothing whatsoever to do with Gold's model of methane from the core seeping into the crystalline basement.

But do go ahead and believe -- every kook theory needs it adherents.

74 posted on 08/18/2003 11:52:17 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Nice try. The oil has to be migrating into the deeper sedimentary layers from below -- just as Gold and the Russians have said and proved:

Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning

By CHRISTOPHER COOPER Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

"...Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

"It kind of blew me away," says Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Connected to Woods Hole since 1973, Dr. Whelan says she considered herself a traditional thinker until she encountered the phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, she says, "I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating" deep underground..."

From Thomas Gold's website:

"...Drilling deep into the crystalline granite of Sweden between 1986 and 1993 revealed substantial amounts of natural gas and oil. 80 barrels of oil were pumped up from a depth between 5.2 km and 6.7 km.

Russian petroleum geologists followed this operation closely. Dr. P.N. Kropotkin reported at a meeting in Moscow that the discovery of oil deep in the Baltic Shield may be considered a decisive factor in the hundred year old debate about the biogenic or abiogenic origin of oil. This discovery was made in deep wells that were drilled in the central part of the crystalline Baltic Shield, on the initiative of T. Gold.

Drilling into crystalline bedrock is now underway in Russia on a large scale. More than 300 wells have been drilled to a depth of more than 5 km and are productive, as also is the giant White Tiger field offshore Vietnam, mostly producing also from basement rock."

"The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades(Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock.(Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper -Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement."

75 posted on 08/18/2003 12:31:39 PM PDT by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
But do go ahead and believe -- every kook theory needs it adherents.
74 -cin-


Just as every luddite type needs his blinders to view our world from the politically correct position.
76 posted on 08/18/2003 12:34:26 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Since there is so much oil, and we just took Iraq in war, why is not gas 65. cents a gallon. And this week it just keeps going up again.
77 posted on 08/18/2003 12:36:11 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
Let the naysayers keep jabbering it as we vacuum up the money from 6+ miles below.

Who is the "we" that is doing this?

78 posted on 08/18/2003 12:37:18 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
Er, make that .65 cents a gallon.
79 posted on 08/18/2003 12:37:53 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
To be clear in my question: I know who is drilling deep, but I can assure you that even if they are hitting Gold's oil, they don't know it. Neither BHP Billiton nor any other major deep driller beleives in Gold's theories. I can assure you of that.
80 posted on 08/18/2003 12:39:30 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson