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

Interesting source "The Economist". Amazing how political will constrains the availability of resources.
1 posted on 05/03/2005 5:06:41 PM PDT by gogipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: gogipper

As brainy as Americans can be, how it is we don't have a cheap alternative for energy that is clean is beyond me.

We should have some super fast way to re-charge batteries from solar sources.

We need to be imaginative and come up with stuff so we can tell the Arab countries to keep their oil.


2 posted on 05/03/2005 5:11:43 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper

BTTT


3 posted on 05/03/2005 5:20:01 PM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper

Anybody ever read that book by Thomas Gold, theorizing that oil is a by-product of microbial activity and is therefore a renewable resource? Excerpt of interview below:

INTERVIEWER: Your most controversial idea is the non-biological origin of natural gas and oil. You put forth the position that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas. Your theory was first publicly referenced in a book by your colleague, the late Fred Hoyle, one of the world’s leading physicists and astronomers, in which Hoyle had a chapter entitled “Gold’s Ore Theory,” the ore referring to the porous spaces in the Earth. What first prompted you to suggest that oil and natural gas is generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth?

GOLD: The astronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them. Is it reasonable to think that our little Earth, one of the planets, contains oil and gas for reasons that are all its own and that these other bodies have it because it was built into them when they were born?

INTERVIEWER: That question makes a lot of sense. After all, they didn’t have dinosaurs and ferns on Jupiter to produce oil and gas?

GOLD: That’s right. Yet, for some reason my theory was not heard. The old theory that it was all made from fossils had become so firmly established that when the astronomers had perfectly definitive evidence on most of the other planets, it was just ignored, especially by the petroleum geologists who had, by then, called these things “fossil fuels.” So once they had a name, then every body believed it.

INTERVIEWER: The oil geologists have carved a niche for themselves and they are perceived now to “know more” about how oil was supposedly formed from dinosaur bones than anybody. However, you have taken your theory (which argues against the traditional theory) and have gone one step further by saying that there is a biosphere; that living entities (fungi, microbes, etc.) are not necessarily just the ones we see on the surface of the Earth but that living creatures are deep in the Earth which could have given rise to creatures on the surface.

GOLD: I will tell you why this had to be so and why I became convinced. In the whole petroleum and coal story, there is this extraordinary paradox that all of these substances contain some biological material. But the chemistry in detail fits it better, as many chemists have said, with the theory of a primordial hydrocarbon mixture (say an oil or gas mixture) to which biological products have been added. That was one aspect that has been quite firmly noted by many Nobel laureate chemists and others.

INTERVIEWER: So every time they find oil deep in the ground and they analyze it chemically, they are effectively supporting your theory?

GOLD: Absolutely. That has been known, also, for quite a large number of years since the mid-1950s.

INTERVIEWER: Human skull fossils have been found in anthracite coal in Pennsylvania. The official theory of the development of coal will not accept that reality, since human beings were not around when anthracite coal was formed.

GOLD: That’s right. Coal was formed millions of years ago.

INTERVIEWER: However, you cannot mistake the fact that these are human fossils. Nonetheless, your theory explains how this could come about.

GOLD: The La Breatarpits in Los Angeles have saber toothed tigers and all kinds of things in them. But the only thing which, at the present time, you can see anything that would make coal of the kind that we mine (usually at a very shallow level) are the big tar pits and tar lakes, such as the one at La Brea and ones in Trinidad.

The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff. It was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside. A hard, brittle coal is not going to get into each cell of a delicate leaf without destroying it. So obviously that stuff was a thin liquid at one time which gradually hardened.

The only thing we find now on the Earth that would do that is petroleum, which gradually becomes stiffer and harder. That is the only logical explanation for the origin of coal. So the fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and mulch it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.

INTERVIEWER: Where then does the carbon base come from that produces all of this?

GOLD: Petroleum and coal were made from materials in which heavy hydrocarbons were common components. We know that because the meteorites are the sort of debris left over from the formations of the planets and those contain carbon in unoxidized form as hydrocarbons as oil and coal-like particles. We find that in one large class of meteorites and we find that equally on many of the other planetary bodies in the solar system. So it’s pretty clear that when the Earth formed it contained a lot of carbon material built into it.

INTERVIEWER: Your book points out that there are all sorts of life forms within the Earth.

GOLD: It was an unthinkable thing, when this discovery was made, that there were life forms that did not depend on life on the surface, such as the process called photosynthesis where we find chemical energies created from the sunlight. That had been thought to be the only way life was to be supported. And here we find gasses and liquids coming up from cracks in the ocean floor which feed enormously intense forms of life, which includes quite large creatures. It is only because we found and saw some of these large creatures that this was discovered. However, the principal things that are living there are microbial, which feed the large creatures.

INTERVIEWER: To verify your theories, you participated in the drilling of an unusual oil well in Sweden. Please tell us about that.

GOLD: I was responsible for initiating the drilling of two quite deep wells in a huge meteorite crater in central Sweden. The reason I was interested in that was be cause it was in pure granitic rock with not a stitch of any sediment—nothing biological, just hard brittle rock.

To the average oil geologist that kind of area would be a wasteland.

They thought I was absolutely crazy to get the Swedes to drill there.

We were not able to produce commercial quantities of oil, because of the bacteriological content which clogged up the wells, but the bacteria which were living there were on the oil that was coming up. The bacteria that were captured at the various levels were just exactly those that would only reproduce at the elevated temperatures that, of course, occur at the various levels. There was no question that these were microbes from down there that were living, in fact, on the oil and gas as their principal food source and that this was their supply of energy.

Let me tell you why I was convinced. We first pulled up 80 barrels of oil, so this was not just trace amounts. Yet, I had been told by I don’t know how many traditionalists that this was an absolutely mad place to look for oil.

Meanwhile, based on the Swedish results, the Russians have drilled 300 deep holes in granitic rock of this type in Russia and found oil in most of them. The White Tiger field off the coast of Vietnam is producing at a very good rate now from granitic-based rock, so we know that this whole story is correct.

-snip-


5 posted on 05/03/2005 5:29:38 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper
Oil is either replenishible or it is not. If it is not, then we really shouldn't care about 'conserving' it because, at some point, it's going to run out anyway. Does it matter if that's tomorrow or 50 years from now? No. All we're doing by 'conserving' is putting off the inevitable. This should spur us to develop other sources of energy (either now or down the road.) Also, what good to the earth is it to leave the oil underground? None. Use it all!!

Now, if it is replenishable, then we only have to ensure that the consumption lags behind the replenishment rate.

10 posted on 05/03/2005 5:48:54 PM PDT by hollywood (Stay on topic, please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper

Someday, we WILL wind up not being able to extract oil. Best to start planning for that day now.

The upside is that without oil, Arab countries can only export sand and camel crap. No money for terrorism...

And the big problem with oil right now is refining capacity. Nobody wants a refinery in their backyard. NIMBY! NIMBY! NIMBY!


14 posted on 05/03/2005 5:51:41 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; AMDG&BVMH; amom; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

List of Ping lists

16 posted on 05/03/2005 5:52:45 PM PDT by farmfriend (Send in the Posse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper

I don't care if we develop fancy new energy sources, as long as its a product of the free market, and not compelled on us by the EPA. If we could just leave the economy alone, these issues would not require intervention. Free markets are incredibly efficient at making a cost-benefit analysis, and developing practical solutions to economic needs. If it becomes economical to run our cars on sunlight, fuel cells, or twizzlers, and there's a realistic chance of it working, then it would happen. If looking for more oil is the best approach, then the economy will do that instead. If in 100 or 200 years we start to actually have problems finding oil, then marketable solutions will be found. It's when we adopt this Master Plan mentality of subsidies and regulations that we end up causing problems. The OPEC oligopoly does try to rig prices, but the market factors that in as well. We need to stop suppressing domestic energy companies, and maybe even let them build refineries once in a while.


27 posted on 05/03/2005 6:22:01 PM PDT by dementg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper
A few decades ago the average oil recovery rate from reservoirs was 20%. Thanks to remarkable advances in technology this has risen to about 35% today."

Well, that's wrong. It's risen from about 40% to about 60%.

I wish they'd talk to current professionals in the industry before publishing this stuff.

31 posted on 05/03/2005 6:43:45 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper
Based on what I've read, I believe Peak Oil to be for real.

So far, oil agrees me since it's price has gone up.

But then again, oil is pretty dumb. If there is too much oil, it's price will decrease. And if there is not enough oil, it's price will increase.

35 posted on 05/03/2005 6:46:57 PM PDT by Mulder (“The spirit of resistance is so valuable, that I wish it to be always kept alive" Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper

I believe that because oil is priced in American dollars and since the value of the American dollar has gone down significantly in the last 10 years that it makes economic sense to purchase foreign oil with dollars that are worth 50% of what they were worth during the oil shortages during the 1970's. A company can purchase foreign oil and import it to the U.S. with cheaper dollars with out the risks associated for exploring for domestic petroleum. This is the primary reason that drilling in the U.S. with the high cost of environmental regulations has not increased like it should because of the higher prices for oil and gas.


43 posted on 05/03/2005 7:25:46 PM PDT by txoilman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: gogipper

Oil, Oil Everywhere
The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^ | Sunday, January 30, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST | PETER HUBER AND MARK MILLS
Posted on 01/30/2005 10:24:37 AM CST by Woodworker
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331914/posts

Also, another idea:

Anything into Oil(solution to dependence on foregn oil?)
DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 5 ^ | May 2003 | Brad Lemley
Posted on 04/21/2003 7:57:41 AM CDT by honway
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/897232/posts


70 posted on 05/30/2005 9:57:12 AM PDT by hripka (There are a lot of smart people out there in FReeperLand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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