So much for a Nissan Leaf!

[Cat_Driver]

We will never ever run out of "fossil fuel" it is in itself a renewable energy source. The planet makes it every single day.

Scientists have yet to agree on where or HOW crude is formed. Some agree that "fossil fuel" made from organic plants animals is a myth. I tend to agree. With crude being found miles below the earth surface dictates that that animal/ plant at one time was miles below the current level of ground and was " buried" by blow sand enough o cover the entire earth bu miles of blow sand. Common sense says this is impossible. Next we are to believe that millions of plants and dinosaurs all dies in the exact same spot to crate a "pool" of crude. WOW that's also impossible. Next the plants and animals died all over the world but their remains just "flowed" to rest in certain areas of teh earth like Texas, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Norther states etc. WOW again improbable.

Then we have the so-called "abiogenic" theory whereas petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.

If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.

Discovery backs theory oil not ‘fossil fuel’

A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a “fossil fuel” derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.
Read more at Discovery backs theory oil not ‘fossil fuel’

That's my belief is that everyone reading this, and their great, great, great, great grand kids will never ever see the depletion of crude.

Fake "shortage" is only a way to get you and me to pay more.

 

[buickanddeere]

Coal while not the same type of fuel , it is "related" . Coal deposits are relatively shallow and often contain fossilized plant leaves.
Good question how crude oil if it's the remains of organic matter. How it's located so deep. It does pose the possibility of a asteroid loaded with water or frozen hydrogen hitting a carbon rich planet. The resulting heat and pressure is going to do something.

 

[SPIKER]

I like to think we mostly know where Oil comes from but then we see that on some of Jupiter moons are covered in methane lakes & rains of liquid methane. We "know" on earth that methane is made by critters decaying or coming out of the south bound end of a north bound cow & must be regulated by the Obama EPA.

Getting at the reserves of oil out of the shale is not that hard TODAY vs the 1970s or earlier. Technology & advances in drilling and fracking let us get that out. There is similar shale layers all over the earth not just in center of USA. The problem is lots of these countries where it also is under like mentioned is all government owned by either hostile governments or by ones where they subjugate their people. The cost of oil today is not as much to do with how expensive it is to get the oil OUT of the ground as speculators driving the price up on the open market. Many of the wells drilled into Texas and South Dakota are paid for within weeks of going into production at these $100 dollar price levels.

All of this has little to do with the fact that "Battery Electric Only" cars in Rural Northern US will ever be a real viable option. The distances and fact that 1/3 of the year we need Heat and Wipers combined with harsh conditions these battery powered vehicles just are not as trust worthy as a hydrocarbon fueled one. Even at that there are days when a fuel will gel or freeze up and leave you stranded, in the -20F or less. Battery power at those temps would be measured in minutes vs hours or miles.

Perhaps one day we will figure out how to harness the methane contained inside asteroids and moons outside of Earth. Bring that material back to earth? maybe someday but not sure how well it would be dropping giant tanks of methane into the Earth Atmosphere and landing it without blowing California off the map (ok maybe it would work out better for most of USA that way )

Mark

 

[madmax12]

What??????

They drill (grind up rock) about a mile into the earth. Then oil is pump/gas is pumped out. Do you understand the structure of fossils and if so how would you figure that they'd come out intact in the grindings or in the oil.

I assume you were just kidding????:confused3:

Loren

I know it has been taught. Why do you, personally, think oil comes from fossils?

 

[Loren49]

I know it has been taught. Why do you, personally, think oil comes from fossils?

You are not careful enough with what you claim I said (think).

I posted link to site that described fossil fuel formation. Does it say anywhere that oil comes from fossils?

DOE - Fossil Energy: How Fossil Fuels Were Formed
They were formed from prehistoric plants and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

Think about what the Earth must have looked like 300 million years or so ago. The land masses we live on today were just forming. There were swamps and bogs everywhere. The climate was warmer. Ancient trees and plants grew everywhere. Strange looking animals walked on the land, and just as weird looking fish swam in the rivers and seas. Tiny one-celled organisms called protoplankton floated in the ocean.

When these ancient living things died, they decomposed and became buried under layers and layers of mud, rock, and sand. Eventually, hundreds and sometimes thousands of feet of earth covered them. In some areas, the decomposing materials were covered by ancient seas, then the seas dried up and receded.

During the millions of years that passed, the dead plants and animals slowly decomposed into organic materials and formed fossil fuels. Different types of fossil fuels were formed depending on what combination of animal and plant debris was present, how long the material was buried, and what conditions of temperature and pressure existed when they were decomposing.

For example, oil and natural gas were created from organisms that lived in the water and were buried under ocean or river sediments. Long after the great prehistoric seas and rivers vanished, heat, pressure and bacteria combined to compress and "cook" the organic material under layers of silt. In most areas, a thick liquid called oil formed first, but in deeper, hot regions underground, the cooking process continued until natural gas was formed. Over time, some of this oil and natural gas began working its way upward through the earth's crust until they ran into rock formations called "caprocks" that are dense enough to prevent them from seeping to the surface. It is from under these caprocks that most oil and natural gas is produced today.

fos·sil
ˈfäsəl/Submit
noun
the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.
synonyms: petrified remains, petrified impression, remnant,

fos·sil fu·el
noun
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

I have no problem with the definitions. You made up the claim.

There are lots of financial reasons to try to cast doubt on the current scientific consensus. It is a very small fringe that believes oil etc. is being formed any where near as fast as we're using it. Its the old "it can't be us" theory. No reason for this discussion to go on. Lots of information out there along with a bunch of what ifs.


Loren

 

[madmax12]

fos·sil
ˈfäsəl/Submit
noun
the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.
synonyms: petrified remains, petrified impression, remnant,

Is that an accurate representation of fossils? Have you considered the following? I posted it in post 293, as a response to the mocking of those with a view involving a different timeline for history, fossils, and climate.

Fossils are a curious thing. Sometimes, they even defy "settled" science. Consider Mary Schweitzer's comments in that regard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxkeWPCoaec


Consider how "settled" science only needs to investigate/test what it feels like testing/investigating. Settled science is "convenient" that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szHNDAMfA0s

Post 293.

You are stating as fact things that are taught, but have not been established. They have just been force taught and force accepted. They are not established facts.

You are not careful enough with what you claim I said (think).

I posted link to site that described fossil fuel formation. Does it say anywhere that oil comes from fossils?

DOE - Fossil Energy: How Fossil Fuels Were Formed
They were formed from prehistoric plants and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

Think about what the Earth must have looked like 300 million years or so ago. The land masses we live on today were just forming. There were swamps and bogs everywhere. The climate was warmer. Ancient trees and plants grew everywhere. Strange looking animals walked on the land, and just as weird looking fish swam in the rivers and seas. Tiny one-celled organisms called protoplankton floated in the ocean.

When these ancient living things died, they decomposed and became buried under layers and layers of mud, rock, and sand. Eventually, hundreds and sometimes thousands of feet of earth covered them. In some areas, the decomposing materials were covered by ancient seas, then the seas dried up and receded.

During the millions of years that passed, the dead plants and animals slowly decomposed into organic materials and formed fossil fuels. Different types of fossil fuels were formed depending on what combination of animal and plant debris was present, how long the material was buried, and what conditions of temperature and pressure existed when they were decomposing.

For example, oil and natural gas were created from organisms that lived in the water and were buried under ocean or river sediments. Long after the great prehistoric seas and rivers vanished, heat, pressure and bacteria combined to compress and "cook" the organic material under layers of silt. In most areas, a thick liquid called oil formed first, but in deeper, hot regions underground, the cooking process continued until natural gas was formed. Over time, some of this oil and natural gas began working its way upward through the earth's crust until they ran into rock formations called "caprocks" that are dense enough to prevent them from seeping to the surface. It is from under these caprocks that most oil and natural gas is produced today.

fos·sil
ˈfäsəl/Submit
noun
the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.
synonyms: petrified remains, petrified impression, remnant,

fos·sil fu·el
noun
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

I have no problem with the definitions. You made up the claim.

There are lots of financial reasons to try to cast doubt on the current scientific consensus. It is a very small fringe that believes oil etc. is being formed any where near as fast as we're using it. Its the old "it can't be us" theory. No reason for this discussion to go on. Lots of information out there along with a bunch of what ifs.


Loren

If the timeline you believe in is untrue, then the entire concept you put forth for oil creation is flawed.

There are lots of financial reasons to try to cast doubt on the current scientific consensus.

I agree. Much of "settled" science is tied to financial motives and group think.

 

[madmax12]

Here are some large fossil finds.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...LnsAT1kYGwBw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=979



Maybe this is why the thought of oil running out is prevalent.

No oil near fossils.

Not even near Whale fossils.

 

[Loren49]

Is that an accurate representation of fossils? Have you considered the following? I posted it in post 293, as a response to the mocking of those with a view involving a different timeline for history, fossils, and climate.

I disagree that referencing relevant sites is mocking You may want to work at getting the definition of fossil changed.



Post 293.

You are stating as fact things that are taught, but have not been established. They have just been force taught and force accepted. They are not established facts.

I'll go with the scientific consensus. You can believe anything you'd like.






If the timeline you believe in is untrue, then the entire concept you put forth for oil creation is flawed.

Good use of logic but does nothing to support you assertion that the timeline is untrue. Again you get to believe what you'd like.

I agree. Much of "settled" science is tied to financial motives and group think.

Let's see.....who is making the big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$??? Not the research scientists who in general don't make much!

Meet The Climate Denial Machine | Blog | Media Matters for America
Petroleum and Propaganda: The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry
Powell details the support of ExxonMobil for denialism, but omits the combative Koch brothers, owners of Koch Energy, the world’s largest privately held energy company. ExxonMobil is the biggest funder of global-warming denialism, spending nearly $16 million on more than forty organizations over the period 1998–2005. Powell also mentions in passing funding by ideological conservative foundations, motivated by opposition to government regulation of the economy.

Thus, while the oil companies and their hired hands were proclaiming in public that global warming was not caused by burning fossil fuels, their own scientists were saying exactly the opposite in private. If you have never heard of the Bernstein Report, you have lots of company. It did not surface until 2007, a dozen years after it was written, during a discovery process in a California court proceeding.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries

James Hansen: 'Neither Party Wants To Offend The Fossil Fuel Industry' | ThinkProgress

How much do the scientists earn??

Loren

 

[Loren49]

We will never ever run out of "fossil fuel" it is in itself a renewable energy source. The planet makes it every single day.

Scientists have yet to agree on where or HOW crude is formed. Some agree that "fossil fuel" made from organic plants animals is a myth. I tend to agree. With crude being found miles below the earth surface dictates that that animal/ plant at one time was miles below the current level of ground and was " buried" by blow sand enough o cover the entire earth bu miles of blow sand. Common sense says this is impossible. Next we are to believe that millions of plants and dinosaurs all dies in the exact same spot to crate a "pool" of crude. WOW that's also impossible. Next the plants and animals died all over the world but their remains just "flowed" to rest in certain areas of teh earth like Texas, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Norther states etc. WOW again improbable.

Then we have the so-called "abiogenic" theory whereas petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.

If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.

Discovery backs theory oil not ç´*ossil fuel端/url]

A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a �ossil fuel derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.
Read more at [url=http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/#5OGJgtgQks84Bief.99]Discovery backs theory oil not ç´*ossil fuel端/url]

That's my belief is that everyone reading this, and their great, great, great, great grand kids will never ever see the depletion of crude.

Fake "shortage" is only a way to get you and me to pay more.

The source you used twice is fro 2008 and talks of a theory. Is there more current information other than speculation?

[url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil
The abiotic oil hypothesis is an attempt to explain the source and formation of petroleum. As the name suggests, the hypothesis proposes that oil originates from non-biological origins.
The hypothesis is mostly Soviet, mostly archaic, and mostly debunked.

Results of application

No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory and it is generally considered pseudoscience on the order of global warming denialism.[2] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union. Having largely passed with the USSR, it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements,[3] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[4] Russian creationists also favour it.
The Swedes, in fact, drilled in Siljan at Gold's behest and only came up with 80 barrels of oily sludge over a six year period, which easily may have been residue from oil lubricant used in the drilling machinery. Abiotic oil proponents, however, continue to cherry-pick minor increases in production at certain oil wells and declare it as "proof" of abiotic oil.[5]

Also from 2005:
No Free Lunch, Part 2: If abiotic oil exists, where is it?
No Free Lunch, Part 2:
If abiotic oil exists, where is it?
Introduction
Here we will survey some of the geological sites mentioned most often in support of abiotic oil. We will see if there are other, biotic, explanations for the phenomenon found at these sites. Let us remember, that in order to prove the hypothesis of abiotic oil, it is not enough simply to point at sites and say "Here we are producing oil from bedrock" or "Here the reserve is refilling mysteriously." When proving a scientific hypothesis, you must be very careful to disprove any alternative explanations. This is the onus of the abiogenic oil hypothesis.

Furthermore, as Ugo Bardi has pointed out in this newsletter (Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?), if you insist that the standard explanation of oil formation is the result of some conspiracy, then you have already stepped outside of the realm of scientific investigation. The theory of the organic origin of oil evolved gradually and has been refined through many decades of investigation and observation. It does a superb job of explaining the observed phenomenon and predicting new discoveries, and it is consistent with the mechanics of geology.

While everyone is free to form his or her own opinion, when people start talking about a conspiracy of scientists to cover up the supposed abiotic origin of oil, then all an honest scientist can do is to shrug her or his shoulders and say that he or she is not aware of any such conspiracy. In fact, such a contention makes numerous logical errors; based on the logical fallacies listed at Fallacies, I can count at least 17 errors of logic frequently made by those who argue that the biological origin of oil is a conspiracy. Such errors of logic are the province of a politician, not a scientist.

Loren

 

[houstonscott]

You have missed the point, you think all the oil that was produced is finite and what there is it, and that the process has stopped. That is wrong, the process continues. HS