Posted on 08/02/2008 11:40:34 PM PDT by Libloather
My semi-educated guess - the planet manufactures oil - and always will - period.
Just who started this 'fossil' fuel rumor in the first place?
Why don’t you leave off with the headline commentary?
Semi-educated guess followed by “period.” LOL.
I would understand that more if I could.
What do you mean?
1757, Mikhail Lomonossov (Gawd I love the Internet)
Fossil fuel is just a theory.
I heard the rumor started because fossil remains happened to be mixed with oil, so that’s why some jumped to the conclusion that the oil is “fossil fuel.”
How did dinosaurs get at the bottom of the North Sea?
Those would be polar dinosaurs. Get with the times...
They sunk.
Golly! That would mean fossil fuels are...um...RENEWABLE?
An oil guy was saying he thought that oil is abiotic & produced deeply in intense heat & pressure areas where friction & pressure break down carbon elements & turn it into gas, and it works it’s way up, cools and congeals and is OIL.
I think that kinda makes the point. Tree fossil remains are the bedrock for future finds? I dunno.
If only we could make oil out of past and present editions of the NY Times...
An oil guy THOUGHT? Apparently, he doesn't know.
The earth's core temp is estimated at around 5000 to 7000 degrees Celsius. Some say 9000 degrees. (Talk about global warming - eh?) No chemical reactions take place at those temps? Kinda hard to believe...
Try this. It is science, and refutes your notion of inorganic origins of commercial hydrocarbon deposits.
http://www.geotimes.org/nov02/NN_oil.html
Geoscientists are cringing as news reports dredge up what they have long considered a preposterous assertion about the origin of oil: that none of the fossil fuels found on this planet come from fossils.
Refutes - or confirms?
Coal is believed to have come from decomposed primeval swamp forests of giant mosses and ferns from the time of the early dinosaurs. Oil OTOH comes from plankton of ancient oceans.
http://www.bbg.org/gar2/pgn/2003su_fossilfuels.html
Yeah, if you want to wait hundreds of millions of years...or else God decides to make it all come back in a >poof!< again.
But like groundwater, if you take it out faster than it's being generated, then of course you're going to run out.
Did you read the article, or just paste the part about geoscientists cringing at news reports that are wrong (causing people like you to believe things that are wrong)?
The larger point is that even if the abiotic oil theory is true — and it almost certainly is to some degree — it does not mean that oil fields will be replenished at a rate that is economically meaningful for us today. Once we find and deplete every economically useful oil field on earth, it will take a long time before oil reappears in meaningful quantities through abiotic processes.
In the meantime, we will need other energy sources. The best approach is to drill and dig so as to extend the fossil fuel era as long as possible. At the same time, we must develop other energy sources: solar; geothermal; hydro; tidal; ocean thermal; nuclear; biomass; biofuel; etc.
The Democrats are fools for thinking that finding and adopting economically useful successors for oil and coal will be easy or cheap. In disputing that folly, we should not let ourselves become fools as well by thinking that abiotic oil processes make such successors unnecessary.
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.