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

[chequita guevara]

They were pumping oil from Baku in the 19th Century.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Even if there is an abiotic origin to oil, that doesn't mean that the extractable part can't be used up. If we can't get to it, it may as well not exist. IIRC, known reserves of iron will be used up in 75 years. That doesn't mean there isn't a hell of a lot more iron in the Earth, but it does mean we won't have anymore.

Such defeatism is surprising for a Marxist!

Don't you have the confidence in humanity's ability to seek out and find new resources, and to develop technologies to replace old resources?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They were pumping oil from Baku in the 19th Century.

It's not being suggested that the entire history of oil production was based on the new theory.

[Sandman]

Hey, maybe there are some deep, abiotic reserves of hydrocarbons. But there's no reason to assume that they're renewable, nor is there any reason to assume that all hydrocarbons were created in this way, especially coal. I point again to peat, a hydrocarbon fuel source that's indisputably of biological origin.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm surprised you're taking this seriously, Provost.

I think it's quackery.

Historically, things have been dismissed too easily as quackery. Most times it will be, but this one does seem to have interest...

[Cort Haus]

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040608-092733-4642r.htm

The Washington Times mentioned it last year. That's enough links from me, I think.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sandman
Hey, maybe there are some deep, abiotic reserves of hydrocarbons. But there's no reason to assume that they're renewable, nor is there any reason to assume that all hydrocarbons were created in this way, especially coal. I point again to peat, a hydrocarbon fuel source that's indisputably of biological origin.

It probably changes very little apart from may give is some new insight into where to look for oil and gas. It's likely that it's rate of replenishment is slow in comparison to our demand. That and the introduction of this carbon into the biosphere is going to be harmful too. We still need to hammer away at alternative forms of energy and not get carried away with what this theory *may* imply...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Such defeatism is surprising for a Marxist!

Don't you have the confidence in humanity's ability to seek out and find new resources, and to develop technologies to replace old resources?

Marxism is a materialist philosophy. As such, we are aware that there are limits to what human beings can accomplish. At a certain point, things will be beyond our reach, possibly forever.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040608-092733-4642r.htm

The Washington Times mentioned it last year. That's enough links from me, I think.

We don't give the Moonies any credit here.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Such defeatism is surprising for a Marxist!

Don't you have the confidence in humanity's ability to seek out and find new resources, and to develop technologies to replace old resources?

Marxism is a materialist philosophy. As such, we are aware that there are limits to what human beings can accomplish. At a certain point, things will be beyond our reach, possibly forever.

So no, you don't have much confidence in humanity, by the sound of things. Well, I'm glad to say that I do .

The vision you describe seems more Maoist than Marxist to me.

[Provost Harrison]

Well communism is inherently, not faith-based in it's purest interpretation...in fact it leans itself to scientific rationalisation very well - so to have 'faith' in something happening wouldn't be a very sensible path for a communist to have as it is the antithesis of what he is about...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Historically, things have been dismissed too easily as quackery. Most times it will be, but this one does seem to have interest...

You think? The opening article has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience, if you ask me.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Seems the Azerbajani Oil Industry is largely a figment of its own quackery-induced hallunications then, as well as the Russian and Ukranian industries.

It's a few years since I studied the subject and I no longer have my reference books but I do remember quite a bit.

Coal is solid and isn't formed from any liquid. The Carboniferous coal measures in England consist of layers of coal, limestone and thin sandstones, consistent with deposition in a delta environment which was periodically flooded by the sea. The key bit is that they find fossil trees there which are intact and cross between the layers. So the coal is contemporary with the surrounding rocks. Unless this guy knows of some way of removing a rock layer and inserting coal that no-one else does or can justify abandoning the theory of stratigraphical dating of rock layers what he is talking about has nothing to do with coal.

Oil is rather different. It moves slowly upwards through the rocks over time and collects in stratigraphical traps (under domes of impervious rock) (it's actually a bit more complicated but that's close enough). So oil isn't found where it was formed. Whether it is from some deep source within the earth or from buried marine sediments doesn't really matter, what matters is where it is found and predicting that is purely about the configuration of the rock layers at depths we can drill to. That is how most recent major oilfields were found (like the North Sea), carrying out seismic surveys and looking for stratigraphical traps.

Finding oil in Pre-Cambrian basement rock means nothing. If at some point in time those rocks were higher up than adjacent source rocks for the oil it could have migrated in and the rocks later moved deeper.

This begins to smell like Soviet propaganda - "we know something you decadent westerners don't" - or an attempt to hide genuine research. It's going to take a lot of proving and then some.

Incidentally oil is a renewable resource - on geological timescales. 200 million years from now the Atlantic Ocean won't be there and there will be plenty of oil about - but that isn't going to put gas in the tank of your Hummer today.

[Provost Harrison]

Oh the opening article is very sensationalist in it's approach and scant on hard fact...some of the other stuff, if you dig around, is more interesting...still there isn't too much information which is why I will hold judgement...

[chequita guevara]

I have plenty of confidence in humanity, but there are limits to what we can do. We will never be able to flap our arms and fly, for example. We are finite creatures. Finite means limited. Just because we havne't gone up against our limits yet doesn't mean they aren't out there.

You also have little understanding of Maoism. Maoists would actually say the opposite, that there is nothing the proletariat cannot achieve if it is united.