Reb, why do you think running out of oil is a myth? Oil production in the United States has been declining for years as existing oil resevoirs are being depleted faster than new oil fields are being discovered. While the oil reserves in the Middle East are far greater than those in the U.S., why would even the prodigeous oil fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Iraq not also be depleted some day as world oil consumption continues to rise?
I agree with you Cal, except that we are both working within the framework of 'conventional' theory regarding the origins of oil. I have always been taught that oil is the byproduct of the demise of pre-historic plants and animals; thus the term 'fossil fuel'. It seems there are those who want to push the idea that oil is not a 'fossil fuel'; it is not produced from the decay of long-dead organisms but rather a natural by-product of planet earth (for lack of a better term). I've heard this theory before and would like to believe it...it would certainly put the lid on the 'we're running out of oil' folks.
The 'Illegal Immigration' portion of the article kind of backs me up a bit. Mexico is a member of OPEC and as such is a major oil-producing country. I do not know how much Mexican oil we use which would justify the open borders policy and the non-enforcement of US Immigration Law.
I agree with you Cal, except that we are both working within the framework of 'conventional' theory regarding the origins of oil.Â* I have always been taught that oil is the byproduct of the demise of pre-historic plants and animals; thus the term 'fossil fuel'.Â* It seems there are those who want to push the idea that oil is not a 'fossil fuel'; it is not produced from the decay of long-dead organisms but rather a natural by-product of planet earth (for lack of a better term).Â* I've heard this theory before and would like to believe it...it would certainly put the lid on the 'we're running out of oil' folks.
The 'Illegal Immigration' portion of the article kind of backs me up a bit.Â* Mexico is a member of OPEC and as such is a major oil-producing country.Â* I do not know how much Mexican oil we use which would justify the open borders policy and the non-enforcement of US Immigration Law.Â*
Quote:
Who are the members of OPEC?
There are eleven member countries of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. They are: Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.
Mexico is not an OPEC member . The term for inorganic hydrocarbon production is "abiogenic" , here's a good article about it:
Personally , I favor the abiogenic theory , it's entirely plausible when considered on a planetary scale instead of just surface deposition . The oil industry was the original source of the organic theory , and we all know how honest they can be .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
If the abiogenic (planetary phenomenon)theory of petroleum formation were true oil deposits should be distributed uniformly all over the world. However, this is clearly not the case (and why the Middle East is so geopolitically important). Oil deposits seem to be heavily concentrated in some areas such as the Persian Gulf and essentially absent in other areas such as East Africa. I think the biogenic explanation is more compatable with the fact that some areas have great amounts of oil while other areas of comparable or even larger size have little or no oil. How do we explain the fact that the Persian Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq, Iran and Oman) have greater proven reserves than all the rest of the world put together? Why is there so much oil in Venezuala but so little in its much larger neighbor Brazil?
I believe the answer is that at certain times in the past these oil rich areas experienced unique conditions and geological processes that were conducive to the formation of oil and gas deposits. These would include sediments rich in organic matter due to abundant flora andfauna that then became buried under the right conditions of heat and pressure to form oil and gas. In addition these areas developed geological structures with rock of the right porosity and permiability that could holdoil and gas. Finally this oil and gas bearing structure would have to besealed by a layer or impermiable rock such as shale so that the oil and gas would not escape from the formation and be lost to the surface environment.
For all of these processes to occur in the right sequence was probably pretty uncommon and that explains why we can not just drill a well anywhere and expect to find oil. The known oil fields do have these characteristics of a sedimentary source rock, porous and permiable resevoir rock and impermeable cap rock.
It would be nice if oil were abiogenic and therefore essentially unlimited but I believe oil depositis are limited to the organic matter that over the past 300 million years managed to undergo the fairly rare processes that eventually produce exploitable oil deposits.
I stand corrected. Mexico may produce oil, but it's not an OPEC member.
(Did I confuse Mexico and Venezuela ? Shame on me !)
At any rate, on the surface, the 'abiogenic' idea seems to make more sense than billions of gallons of decayed and metamorphosed organic matter waiting to be sucked up and refined. I never could see how this could be possible but this is affirmed in the article you provide the link for. I believe (I could be wrong), the article acknowledges the existence of both Biogenic and Abiogenic hydrocarbons but goes on to state that commercial quantities of these hydrocarbons are only biological in origin and the 'naturally produced' hydrocarbons, which surely being produced, are not deposited in quantities conducive to commercial exploitation. With this in mind, the original statements regarding the possibility of 'running out' of oil must be considered as a legitimate concern as long as the majority of the oil currently being exploited is organic in nature, and as long as the 'natural' occurrence of wet-rock hydrocarbons is not in commercial amounts as suggested in the article. What I don't get from the article, is if it's commercial oil which is not abiogenic or commercial natural gas which is not abiogenic. On one hand, it describes a paucity of 'naturally produced' oil, then it seems they're talking about depleted oil fields being replenished by the natural action of the earth.
Caldoc:
How did those alleged organic deposits find themselves buried thousands to tens of thousands of feet underground ? "Getting buried by earthquakes" just doesn't account for that , and dino and plant fossils are never found as deeply as oil deposits .
Why would abiogenically created petroleum be deposited evenly over the surface of the planet since nearly all material rising from the mantle does so through fissures which by nature are randomly distributed ? If you squeeze something hard enough it will crack , but never evenly .
Was there ever sufficient biomass on this planet to have broken down into the volume of petroleum that has already been used up ? Somehow I can't see there ever having been that kind of volume since biomass breaks down into solid compost at a ratio of approximately 8-10 to 1 , to break down to a viscous liquid would require much more substantial volumetric loss .
I have a feeling the jury will be out a long time on this one. The real question is how long will/does it take for new oil deposits to develop? There are oil fields that for all intents and purposes have dried up over the years, it could very well be possible that we are using oil at a faster rate then it is being developed by the earth no matter the manner.
__________________
The Tazman aka Martin Price
Proud father of a Devil Dog
Myth
