Does Deep Earth Host Untapped Fuel?

ABCnews.com ^ | January 19, 2006 | Lee Dye

[jocon307]

"If he was right, it means the finite limits of the resources that power our cities and our factories and our vehicles have been vastly overstated."

This is a terrible sentence. Does it mean there is more than was thought or less? It is completely unclear.

[Obadiah]

I have been saying this for years. However, everytime I raise this theory, many here pooh-pooh it. I maintain that there is a very good chance that this in fact happens. Do scientists even know much about the earth's core? No, not much.

[Fester Chugabrew]

More than was thought. BUMP

[js1138]

The question is not whether, but how much. And if it's lots, does it migrate to the surface fast enough to replenish what we use.

[cheme]

more than thought

[FairOpinion]

If he was right, it means the finite limits of the resources that power our cities and our factories and our vehicles have been vastly overstated."


---

I agree, it's a terrible sentence, but I think he is trying to say that the FINITE part has been overstated, i.e. we don't have hard limits on the oil inside the earth. i.e. there is a virtually infinite supply, because new oil keeps forming.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Essentially gravity plus rocks makes methane. It may well make some more complicated hydrocarbons. And it probably makes them world wide at the appropriate depth. And some of them semi-randomly work their way to harvestable depths. This is all to the good, but it doesn't tell us how much is made annually at those depths and how much of that each year reaches harvestable depths in commercially useful quantities. This is worth further research, but don't count it as the solution to the energy problem until at least enough is known to convert it to an engineering problem. Science does know where a nearly infinite supply of methane is gravitationally blocked from us... at several sites in the out solar system. The deep earth sources are smaller and may be harder to tap.

[SauronOfMordor]

The question is not whether, but how much. And if it's lots, does it migrate to the surface fast enough to replenish what we use.

That's the crucial question. If the rate of production is much less than our rate of consumption, then we still have a long-term problem unless we switch to nuke/solar/geothermal

[em2vn]

Violate the narrow FR orthodoxy and.... Well you know.

[xcamel]

If he was right, it means the finite limits of the resources that power our cities and our factories and our vehicles have been vastly overstated.

Corrected

If he was right, it means the limited quantities of the resources that power our cities, factories, and our vehicles have been vastly understated.

For those in Rio Linda...
If he was right, we got a whole lot more than the experts think.

[Bernard Marx]

"I expected nothing to happen," he says. "But sure enough, it formed methane. It was a bit of a shock."

To me this is the scary statement: the predetermination of results. At least he was intellectually rigorous enough to actually do the experiment. It reminds me of the 'archaeologists' who didn't bother to dig below the Clovis level at their sites because they 'knew' they wouldn't find anything.

It's what we 'know' that isn't true that can hurt us.

[NormsRevenge]

I remember falling asleep as I listened to some guy explain how the earth is like a giant refinery of products that are continually being produced as part of a geocosmic life supporting body.

pretty incredible, the amount of untold renewing energy and wealth that lies beneath our feet.

Please, don't upset the Mole People tapping into it. ;-)

[Dallas59]

Maybe it also means that our Solar System is full of this stuff.

[tpaine]

-- There is no 'question' whatsoever that methane is formed throughout the solar system by heat & pressure.
-- After all, 'Gas Giant' planets do exist.

Thus the only question remaining is: -- why is that fact ignored when we discuss the formation of hydrocarbons on earth?

[rottndog]

petroleum produced by geology, not by biology.

Makes sense to me, considering how much petroleum we are using, the rate at which our use is increasing, and the fact that oil reserves are increasing at a greater rate. It does not seem logical to me that a biological process that takes so long could produce so much. How much biological material actually reaches the depths of the Earth required to produce petroleum? It doesn't make sense to me.

Wouldn't it be nice to retire the term "fossil fuel"? Then we could say to the environazis "Look, we aren't using fossil fuels anymore! We're only consuming the milk of Geia!"

[jocon307]

Thanks all for the clarification.

[FairOpinion]

Very interesting.

Here is a potential technique to get more oil out:

US says CO2 injection could quadruple oil reserves

The United States, where oil production has been declining since the 1970s, has the potential to boost its oil reserves four-fold through advanced injection of carbon dioxide into depleted oilfields, the Department of Energy said on Friday.

The United States, the world's top oil consumer, has been successfully pumping small amounts or carbon dioxide into depleted oil and natural gas fields for 30 years to push out hard-to-reach fossil fuels.

The DOE said 89 billion barrels could potentially be added to current proved U.S. oil reserves of 21.9 billion barrels through injection of carbon dioxide, the main gas that most scientists believe is warming the earth.

[RightWhale]

Earth is hollow with a miniature sun at the center. The entrance is at the north pole, and UFOs come from there.

[Physicist]

Violate the narrow FR orthodoxy and.... Well you know.

People disagree?