Quote:

 

If hydrocarbons are renewable- then is "Peak Oil" a fraud?
by Joel Bainerman

Are hydrocarbons "renewable"- and if so- what does such a conclusion mean for the future of the world's oil and natural gas supplies?

The question is critical due to the enormous amount of coverage the issue of "Peak Oil" is receiving from the mainstream press. If the supply of hydrocarbons is renewable- then the contrary to the conventional wisdom being touted throughout the mainstream press today- the world is NOT running out of oil.

Unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been for quite some time now two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma.

One of the world's leading advocates for the theory that hydrocarbons are renewable is Dr. Thomas Gold who contends that oil is not a limited resource, and that oil, natural gas and coal, are not so-called “fossil fuels.”

In his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, he explains that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas, but rather generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth.

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

He continues: "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. Coal was formed millions of years ago. However, you cannot mistake the fact that these are human fossils."

"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."

Gold claims that 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 found in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. Where then does the carbon base come from that produces all of this?

Says Dr. 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."

Dr. Gold's ideas would lead us to believe that there is so much natural gas in the earth that it is causing earthquakes in trying to escape from the Earth. If you’ll drill deep enough anywhere, you will find natural gas. It may not be in commercial quantities every time, but more than likely it will be.

Headspin

Apr 24 2008, 11:04 AM

I think the arguments used in that 321energy.com article are poorly researched, agenda-driven, factually inaccurate and not consistent with the science. it is so typical of all the anti peak-oil propaganda.

consider this:
1. application of heat to oil will "crack" it into smaller molecules (breaking the carbon-carbon bonds)
2. heat increases the deeper you go into the ground, heat increases uniformly with depth (25 Celcius per km).
3. the heat at 15,000 feet is 145 Celcius, this is high enough to crack oil into natural gas.
4. oil is produced in a very small window of about 20 feet strata of rock 7,000 feet down.

conclusion - it is impossible for oil to exist below 15,000 feet, because any that does (or did) exist will be cracked into natural gas. hydrocarbons are cracked into oil over a million years at 82 Celcius (7,500-15000 feet)

Peak oil is not about whether dinosaurs came from oil, or whether oil came from dinosaurs, it is about whether the earth can replace what we burn. the answer is no. the only question then is when will peak oil production arrive.

In 1956 Hubbert King predicted the peaking of US oil production in the early 1970s. It peaked in 1974. The same models extrapolated to world oil production predicts 2006 as world oil production peak.

http://tinyurl.com/5wxlqk

Gideon524

Apr 24 2008, 12:36 PM

but I can't get my head around the idea that energy is infinite, which it must be if this economy expects continued growth.

Roxdog

Apr 24 2008, 12:48 PM

For the record: I don't have anything against Ruppert. He's just wrong on this. I actually learned about Ruppert and CIA drug dealing before I knew anything about 9/11.

Roxdog

Apr 24 2008, 12:48 PM

Headspin

Apr 24 2008, 11:04 AM

I think the arguments used in that 321energy.com article are poorly researched, agenda-driven, factually inaccurate and not consistent with the science. it is so typical of all the anti peak-oil propaganda.

consider this:
1. application of heat to oil will "crack" it into smaller molecules (breaking the carbon-carbon bonds)
2. heat increases the deeper you go into the ground, heat increases uniformly with depth (25 Celcius per km).
3. the heat at 15,000 feet is 145 Celcius, this is high enough to crack oil into natural gas.
4. oil is produced in a very small window of about 20 feet strata of rock 7,000 feet down.

conclusion - it is impossible for oil to exist below 15,000 feet, because any that does (or did) exist will be cracked into natural gas. hydrocarbons are cracked into oil over a million years at 82 Celcius (7,500-15000 feet)

Peak oil is not about whether dinosaurs came from oil, or whether oil came from dinosaurs, it is about whether the earth can replace what we burn. the answer is no. the only question then is when will peak oil production arrive.

In 1956 Hubbert King predicted the peaking of US oil production in the early 1970s. It peaked in 1974. The same models extrapolated to world oil production predicts 2006 as world oil production peak.

http://tinyurl.com/5wxlqk

The same Hubbert King that worked for Dutch Royal Shell?

Calling things "propaganda", "agenda driven" and factually inaccurate without being specific doesn't really do much for your position. Can you address what I highlighted? How are "fossil fuels" created without fossils? King "predicted" oil shortages in 1974 but they never happened. They didn't happend in 1995 either. Or 2006. Simply saying we've peaked doesn't mean we've peaked. More and more oil is found each and every year. This is fact. Should we burn oil as if its supply is infinite? Of course not. But should we completely reengineer society based on the opinion of some dead scientist with extreme conflicts of interests whose "predictions" have yet to actually occur?

That doesn't sound very logical. Kenneth Deffeyes , one of King's colleagues says we haven't peaked yet. You stated we are supposed to peak in 2006. It's 2008 now.

For the record: I don't have anything against Ruppert. He's just wrong on this. I actually learned about Ruppert and CIA drug dealing before I knew anything about 9/11.

Quote:

 

Calling things "propaganda", "agenda driven" and factually inaccurate without being specific doesn't really do much for your position.

Quote:

 

Can you address what I highlighted? How are "fossil fuels" created without fossils?

Quote:

 

King "predicted" oil shortages in 1974 but they never happened.

Quote:

 

They didn't happend in 1995 either.

Quote:

 

Or 2006.

Quote:

 

More and more oil is found each and every year. This is fact.

Quote:

 

This is not correct, he predicted the peak of United States oil production in the early 1970s, his 1956 prediction came true in 1974- United States Oil production has been in decline since 1974 - imported oil makes up the difference which explains why you did not notice the decline.

Quote:

 

I am not aware of any 1995 prediction.

Quote:

 

the actual prediction is an estimate 2004-2010. that window has been pushed forward a few years because the economic decline due to the 1979 oil crises was not known about - the kink in the opil production graph demonstrates the impact of this event. The truth is that you won't know we have reached peak until a few years after the fact.

Quote:

 

I am not aware of this fact. can you give me a source for this?

Quote:

 

Hubberts model takes into account new oil discoveries. new oil discoveries do not compensate the amount that we burn.

Quote:

 

1970s peak predicted in 1956

look-up

Apr 24 2008, 03:35 PM

Headspin... whether peak oil is an eventual reality or not, do you agree that the elite are probably trying to control the issue?

illeagalhunter

Apr 30 2008, 04:55 AM

iam reading Mikes book right now its powefull stuff

Quote:

 

So i can accept the possibilty that peak oil maybe totally made up...but i simply see no pertinent evidence for it being fabricated - if you know of any - please give it to me. fabricated peak oil theory would have to go against all the geological science that has been built up over decades, i would think that is difficult if not impossible to completely control.

Quote:

 

Most analysts believe US output peaked in 1970 and has since declined. Others, like economist and author F. William Engdahl, disagree. He's been researching oil issues since the early 1970s and believes US output peaked at the time but not because of resource depletion. It's "because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, (and) at prices so low (that) many Texas domestic producers could not compete and" had to shutter their operations.