The Myth of Fossil Fuel
- Thread starter 125gJoe
- Start date
Beeker said:
Nobody said 'well that is just a theory'. I said its not the opinion of the scientific community. And oil comes from organic material, not really 'dead animals' but decaying plants. Fossils are extremely rare in any case, we dont find many of them at all.
125gJoe said:
I disagree with you on how proven this is, but like happychem asked, how do you get an organic substance from a non-organic process? There needs to be organic matter involved in there somewhere. Perhaps it means their is life deep within the earth's core.
And as I said, its not a matter of running out of oil. Economically it cant happen. its a matter of costs of extracting the oil, and at some point, an alternative source becomes less expensive.
slipknottin said:
Little kids can go to Arizona and break rocks and find millions of trilobites in one little mine. Just go there and rent a bucket and a pick and you can sit there all day and collect fossils.
Also, if oil comes from decaying organic matter that has been exposed to heat, how is it that there is so much oil in Alaska and under the ocean, which happen to be very cold places?
Don't forget that synthetic oil does not come from decaying organic matter.
Here's what I don't get. We're debating whether oil is a precious commodity or not. Clearly it is a limited resource no matter which theory of its creation you subscribe to.
We know it is not a cheap fuel to obtain. The costs involved in drilling are pretty huge. If you don't believe me just watch one of those Discovery channel shows about building off shore oil platforms.
We also know that it is not the cleanest burning fuel we use. Regardless of any global warming rhetoric from either side, gasoline engines, oil burning home furnaces, etc. produce some pretty nasty emmissions. True they can be scrubbed by various means to some degree but thats even more effort on top of the effort it took to get the fule and refine it in the first place.
Yet with all that we continue to argue about finding more places to drill. To me its obvious that the effort should be put into finding alternative fuels. No, I'm not saying we all need to buy a Prius or ride our bikes to work and pedal a generator to light our homes. I'm talking about shifting just a bit of all this tremendous energy spent on debating oil to finding better fuel methods.
I find it offensive and a bit ignorant to use the prefix "eco" as an insult. Its sort of like when people express anger at the ACLU. They're there to protect the constitution of the United States so how can that be bad? Admittedly, like the ACLU, some environmental activists can cross the line at times in their zeal but for the most part the concern is noble. Its about taking care of our environment.
So why don't we focus on other energies? Well, as far as I can imagine the only people who would have a vested interest in making sure that fossil fuels remain such a hot commodity is oil companies.
We know it is not a cheap fuel to obtain. The costs involved in drilling are pretty huge. If you don't believe me just watch one of those Discovery channel shows about building off shore oil platforms.
We also know that it is not the cleanest burning fuel we use. Regardless of any global warming rhetoric from either side, gasoline engines, oil burning home furnaces, etc. produce some pretty nasty emmissions. True they can be scrubbed by various means to some degree but thats even more effort on top of the effort it took to get the fule and refine it in the first place.
Yet with all that we continue to argue about finding more places to drill. To me its obvious that the effort should be put into finding alternative fuels. No, I'm not saying we all need to buy a Prius or ride our bikes to work and pedal a generator to light our homes. I'm talking about shifting just a bit of all this tremendous energy spent on debating oil to finding better fuel methods.
I find it offensive and a bit ignorant to use the prefix "eco" as an insult. Its sort of like when people express anger at the ACLU. They're there to protect the constitution of the United States so how can that be bad? Admittedly, like the ACLU, some environmental activists can cross the line at times in their zeal but for the most part the concern is noble. Its about taking care of our environment.
So why don't we focus on other energies? Well, as far as I can imagine the only people who would have a vested interest in making sure that fossil fuels remain such a hot commodity is oil companies.
Beeker said:
Um, Alaska is cold on the surface and the ocean is cold in its depths but the oil doesn't exactly come from there. Hundreds of feet under ground where the oil sits its a tad warmer. Pressures can also produce that heat.
deep down in earth it is very hot, regardless of where in the world you are.Beeker said:
They use methane.
Beeker said:
10' underground anywhere in the world it is about 55 degrees. As you go further down it gets dramatically hotter quite quickly.
The "unlimited oil" concept that the newspaper article touches on has been bouncing around for a long time now, but has never been accepted on a wide scale.
The current drilling proposals for ANWR may only indicate a small percentage of the land being used for oil extraction, but this land happens the be the wetlands which regulate almost the whole of the reserve. Cut off the head and the body dies, too.
Keep in mind the fragility of the tundra biome as well. The areas in which we're used to living (temperate deciduous, mostly), are rather resilient to the destructive force that is man. If you mow down old-growth forest, it will be just about restored in as little as 250-500 years. Meanwhile there are tire tracks left in the tundra of Alaska/Northern Canada that are still there from the 1960s. Not even lichen or small plant life has had time to grow back in 45 years due at least partially to the extremely short growth period.
Besides, let's say we do destroy this last, largest remaining vestige of North American wilderness. Will it really be worth if for another currently estimated 17-24 months worth of domestic oil? That's not a solution, it's not even a proverbial band-aid.
The position of the continents now is not in relation to the position of the continents eons ago. Continental drift has slowly and over time, moved the major land masses of the earth to different areas of the planet.
The current drilling proposals for ANWR may only indicate a small percentage of the land being used for oil extraction, but this land happens the be the wetlands which regulate almost the whole of the reserve. Cut off the head and the body dies, too.
Keep in mind the fragility of the tundra biome as well. The areas in which we're used to living (temperate deciduous, mostly), are rather resilient to the destructive force that is man. If you mow down old-growth forest, it will be just about restored in as little as 250-500 years. Meanwhile there are tire tracks left in the tundra of Alaska/Northern Canada that are still there from the 1960s. Not even lichen or small plant life has had time to grow back in 45 years due at least partially to the extremely short growth period.
Besides, let's say we do destroy this last, largest remaining vestige of North American wilderness. Will it really be worth if for another currently estimated 17-24 months worth of domestic oil? That's not a solution, it's not even a proverbial band-aid.
Beeker said:
The position of the continents now is not in relation to the position of the continents eons ago. Continental drift has slowly and over time, moved the major land masses of the earth to different areas of the planet.
