Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Is Oil A Renewable Energy?

Is Oil A Renewable Energy?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter2Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon1Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Oh, dear! What is President Barack Hussein Obama going to do now? Evidence is mounting that not only do we have more than 100 years (or more) worth of recoverable oil in the US alone, but that we also actually have a limitless supply of oil because it is a renewable resource that is being constantly created.

Dr. Thomas Gold, astronomer and professor emeritus of Cornell University, presents the theory of “abiotic” oil-creation. He states that “biotic” creation of fossil fuels, that decaying organic matter is compressed into oil, is incorrect. According to Gold, we have an unending supply of oil, some of which is constantly migrating upward from the depths at which it is created to refill existing oil deposits, and much more of which remains far below the surface. Gold has maintained for years that oil is actually renewable primordial syrup, starting as methane, continually manufactured by the earth under ultra hot conditions and tremendous pressures. This substance migrates upward, picking up bacteria that attack it, making it appear to have an organic origin. or to appear to come from dinosaurs and vegetation. Under the right conditions of temperature and pressure, this primordial syrup converts to more complex hydrocarbons, such as oil. This oil can be recovered using existing technology.

Eugene Island is an underwater mountain located about 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1973 oil was struck, and the field began production at 15,000 barrels a day, then gradually fell off, as is normal, to 4,000 barrels a day in 1989, Then came the surprise; it reversed itself and increased production to 13,000 barrels a day. Probable reserves have been increased to 400 million barrels from 60 million. The field appears to be filling from below and the crude coming up is from a geological age different from the original crude, which leads to the speculation that the world has limitless supplies of petroleum. Similar occurrences have been seen at other Gulf Of Mexico fields, at the Cook Inlet oil field, at oil fields in Uzbekistan, and it is possible this accounts for the longevity of the Saudi Arabian fields where few new finds have been made, yet reserves have doubled while the fields have been exploited mercilessly for 50 years.

In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said there were 151 million barrels of oil in North Dakota’s Bakken formation. In 2008, it upped that estimate to 3 billion barrels, then to 4.3 billion barrels. Now, some oil analysts say there could be as much as 20 billion barrels there. And USGS in 2002 quadrupled its oil estimate in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve.

Spectral analysis reveals that methane is a commonly occurring substance in the universe, found in many planets and asteroids. It would be surprising if the earth had obtained its hydrocarbons only from a biological source. And methane, according to GRT, Inc., can be converted directly to oil, gasoline, and other dropin fuels.

Obama, in his effort to combat global warming (recently renamed climate change), has said that we must convert to “renewable” energy sources. So I thought a few sources about climate change might be in order:

So all you climate change/global warming believers, please march out your data analysis sources.

Regarding Gold’s idea that oil is a “renewable” energy source, it is still an unproven, but demonstrable theory. So if Gold is incorrect, here are some facts:

  • The U.S. has 22.3 billion barrels of proved reserves, less than 2 percent of the world’s proved reserves. (Is that the source of Obama’s remark about the US having 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves?) But, proved reserves “are a small subset of recoverable resources,” because they only count oil that companies are currently drilling for in existing fields.
  • According to the USGS, there are up to 12 billion barrels of oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR).
  • There are up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska’s North Slope, says USGS.
  • There are 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale in the Green River Formation in Wyoming, according to USGS.
  • According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), there are at least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered.
  • According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), America has as much as 19 billion barrels of oil in the Utah tar sands.
  • 800 billion barrels of oil shale in Wyoming and neighboring states could be extracted using existing technology. That’s more than triple the known reserves in Saudi Arabia.

Obama has access to all this data, yet he continues to make claims that are demonstrably false every time he speaks to the issue. Obama is aware of how gas prices and his handling of the issue are harming his reelection chances so he is stumping all over the place and using his two percent line, but the public is not buying his excuses, explanations, justifications or outright lies. What’s particularly offensive about Obama’s statements is his constant use of a false statistic. Obama argues that America uses more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, although “even if we drill in every square inch of this country, we still only have 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves.”

There is a word for what President Barack Hussein Obama is doing: dissembling. There is another word for what he is doing: lying (definition no. 3, verb).

But that’s just my opinion

Powered by

About

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    I don’t have a problem with the idea that oil is abiogenic – I’ve wondered the same thing for many years myself. But I have a really big problem with his assertion – based on nothing more than a wild guess – that:

    the Earth may possess a virtually endless supply – …as much as “at least 500 million years’ worth of gas” – of fossil fuels.

    You see, Warren, Gold was a bit, shall we say, mercurial. He was very intelligent, as was proven by his prediction that the surface of the moon would be covered in about 3cm of ‘moon dust’. But in other areas he was a bit of a goofball. From the same reference as above:

    Gold suggested a “garbage theory” for the origin of life which was an accidental panspermia, the theory says that life on earth might have spread from a pile of waste products accidentally dumped on Earth long ago by extraterrestrials.

    Just because a guy’s a wacko on one issue does not mean he’s wrong on other issues – after all, there’s lots of atheists out there who would think that Einstein was wacko for believing in God. Be that as it may, there’s two rock-solid facts that argue against “drill-baby-drill” and for things like conservation and alternative energy:

    (1) The way the oil market is set up, even if today we found an oil field under Kansas that would supply all America’s needs for the next three centuries, we’d STILL be buying oil from the Middle East and funding people who don’t like us. We know this because we’re an oil exporting nation NOW – we produce more oil than we use – but we’re STILL buying oil from the Middle East. That’s just the way the oil market is set up.

    (2) This little thing called anthropogenic global warming. You may have heard of it. Of course you don’t think it’s real that a half BILLION cars being operated almost every day of every year, pumping out twenty pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere for every single gallon of gasoline used would actually have an effect on our climate…and that’s in addition to the thousands of coal-fired power plants throughout the world and the fact that the world has a significantly SMALLER overall plant mass with which to absorb the increased CO2.

    But of course, you think all that’s just moonshine, and the VAST majority of scientists who tell you that it’s real, well, THEY’re all lying ’cause it’s all a Really Big Conspiracy by the Left, you see, first they’ll take away our big trucks and then they’ll take away our guns and then they’ll take away NASCAR…!

  • zingzing

    republicans: “concerned” about their grandchildren’s national debt (they just want to pay less tax); not concerned about if they can breathe or not.

    great job!

  • suresh

    yes, it is very much renewable energy because earth itself is a single living organism and producing hydrocarbons like all living organism, particular like a bark oil. sediments has nothing to produce oil but good indicators only for the presence of oil near there. i have solved this mystery.
    [Personal contact info deleted]

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Looks like you’ve got a winner for your side in comment #3, Warren! Not that global warming is anything to worry about like nearly every credible scientist on the planet will tell you, but at least you’ve got one more True Believer on your side – way to go, Warren!

  • troll

    …participation in the global oil market is a political choice not a law of (human) nature or an eleventh commandment

  • Glenn Contrarian

    troll –

    Do you really think that short of the excuse of full-scale war (the likes of which we haven’t seen since 1945), that the American government would be able to exert the authority necessary to effectively nationalize all our oil resources?

    Short of such effective nationalization of our oil resources, troll, the American government does NOT have the authority to disallow Big Oil from full participation in the global oil market.

  • troll

    …not without the overthrow of capitalists’ control of production – a worthy goal in itself

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Tell me, troll –

    Now given that I’m not exactly enamored of free-market capitalism. Given that I believe that a strong federal government is essential to the political and economic well-being of a nation. Given that I’ve no love at all for Big Oil.

    Given all that, one would think that I’d be all for ending the “capitalists’ control of production”. So why aren’t I?

    Because I have an understanding of history, and I know that a government that is strong enough to nationalize Big Oil…is a government that is far too powerful for the good of the people.

    Look back in history, troll, and look at what kind of nations in the modern era nationalized critical resources when not at war – with few (if any) exceptions, they’re totalitarian regimes, most recently in Venezuela.

    If you don’t want a totalitarian government, then you don’t want a government powerful enough to nationalize Big Oil. A much smarter plan would be to take all their subsidies – $4B/year – and give it to the makers of alternative energy. $4B/year, btw, is the same amount that China is already using to subsidize their alternative energy manufacturers. Why? Because the Chinese government realizes that it’s wise to invest in the future – but our Republicans seem to think that’s a crime against the Constitution.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    As I understand it, most geologists (I take it that Warren is not a geologist) are of the view that Gold’s ideas are a pile of steaming horseshit. There are a number of objections to the abiogenic theory, but the two principal ones are (1) that it has abjectly failed to predict the location of new oil deposits, and (2) that although hydrocarbons form abiogenically all over the universe, there is no evidence that the specific, complex hydrocarbon compound we call petroleum does.

    Warren is right about one thing: oil is a renewable resource. It’s being renewed miles beneath our feet as we speak. Unfortunately, the renewal is happening at a rate orders of magnitude slower than the rate at which we’re using up what’s already there.

  • troll

    while your question clearly was rhetorical and nothing more than a platform to air your (bogus) understanding of history and exhibit your inability to think outside the capitalist box I’ve got two words for you – Stockholm Syndrome

  • Igor

    The benefit of the concentrated dinosaur oil we drilled for so many years is that it was cheap to drill, refine and ship. None of those is true for the incidental oil found scattered through the rocks in the earths mantle.

    It’s a better investment to invest in solar, wind, etc. The ROI is better, assuming we get rid of the distorting effects of government subsidies to traditional oil producers. The Chinese, free of control of archaic zombie corporations, recognize that coal and oil are just bridge resources to the renewable future, which is why they financed the takeover of the solar panel production business.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Warren kind of reminds me of that guy Kevin Roeten who used to make a fool of himself over in Sci/Tech a year or two back.

    Kevin’s finest hour was when he continued to deny that there was anything green in Greenland even when shown photographs of it being green.

    Warren isn’t quite there yet, but he shows promise.

  • troll

    Igor’s #11 shows how good a bit of totalitarianism is for the capitalist bottom line

  • roger nowosielski

    Like a good medicine which, although poison, when taken in moderation won’t kill you?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Isn’t a little totalitarianism a bit like a little bit pregnant?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/joseph-cotto/ Joseph Cotto

    “….President Barack Hussein Obama….”

    As always, Warren, I still cannot bring myself to grasp exactly what it is that you are trying to achieve with this. If there is some sort of crypto-bigoted sentiment here, why not state it out in the open rather than beat around the bush? Is a principled conservative not supposed to be plain spoken like his or her presumptive political idol Ronald Reagan? I wonder sometimes.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Warren’s sentiment has been pretty clear for a while now. What’s not to understand?

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Explanation of the over-promiscuous Republican voter who has more lovers than Madonna in heat.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren knows the Mississippi Delta very well – and I wouldn’t be surprised if he knows some of the people in this video. It’s because of I’m-proud-of-my-stoopidity people like this that I will never – ever! – live in Mississippi again.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    As the portion of the AP article comparing 36 years of prices as compared to the amount of oil being pumped out of America’s soil, it’s obvious that drilling more does NOT make the prices go down:

    ============================

    It’s the political cure-all for high gas prices: Drill here, drill now. But more U.S. drilling has not changed how deeply the gas pump drills into your wallet, math and history show.
    A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.
    If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you’d now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you’re paying the highest prices ever for March.
    Political rhetoric about the blame over gas prices and the power to change them – whether Republican claims now or Democrats’ charges four years ago – is not supported by cold, hard figures. And that’s especially true about oil drilling in the U.S. More oil production in the United States does not mean consistently lower prices at the pump.
    Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That’s what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.
    U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that’s not what prices are now.
    That’s because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.

    ========================

  • Boeke

    #20-Glenn is quite right. Incresed oil drilling is not in the best interests of the USA and its citizens. It’s benefits go mainly to the foreign-owned oil companies that drill and process the oil, and to the increasing motorists demand in India and China.

  • Kyle Hunter

    Kudos to Jet and Glenn’s links in 18 & 19-I have not laughed that hard in a long time, especially Glenn’s Mississippi rednecks!

  • Tom

    Only a few weeks ago Obama said that “nothing’s off the table” for solving our energy problems. And now he wants to transition from one technology to the next with a few short term solutions that can hardly be successful. Moreover, there are other natural resources we are gradually running out of and little attention has been paid to it thus far. I was surprised when I read about certain kinds of natural resources which are not so well known but whose depletion would pose a serious problem for some industry sectors especially for the world of information technology. I am really concerned about whether the scientists will be able to find an effective solution to this problem other than the devastation of one of Earth’s most valuable natural resources – the ocean as suggested in the article. How does Obama want to solve these problems?

  • http://reasonedtruth.blogspot.com Infinite Spiral

    There continue to be comments that attempt to link “Global Warming” (or Climate Change) to CO2 production. The need to do this is simple. Once the actual “Global Warming” “science” was shown to be a fraud, the only argument left to regulate CO2 was something similar to “Well, operating millions of cars that are all spewing out CO2 MUST have an effect and you can’t deny that!”

    Actually, nobody needs to deny it – it has an effect – just not a “greenhouse” effect. CO2 causes plants to grow faster, larger, and healthier, increasing their equivalent of “metabolism” and causing them to produce more flowers, fruit, offspring, and . . . Oxygen. That’s right. Not only does more CO2 help feed the world, it helps support more life which, in turn, uses that Oxygen and produces more CO2. It’s called an equilibrium and it’s been proven over and over again. Additionally, greenhouse gas theory has be DIS-PROVEN when attempted on a planet because there is no glass ceiling. It’s NEVER been repeated in an experiment and every attempt to do so has proven no link between CO2 concentrations in an atmosphere that thins and dissipates instead of a room that heats and retains.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Problem is, guy, that the world has significantly less plant mass than it once had – witness the growth of cities, roads, farms where there once were forests. Furthermore, there’s far more CO2 production than there ever was before.

    Add that to the fact – the high-school chemistry fact – that every single gallon of gasoline burned produces twenty pounds of CO2. Do the math – there’s about a billion cars in the world, and if each one burns a tank of gas a week, or even if each one burns only ten gallons of gas a week, that’s ten billion gallons, or 200 billion pounds of CO2 going into our atmosphere each and every week of every year, year in and year out.

    So did your eyes glaze over yet? And all that’s without even counting the CO2 emissions of factories, ships, military vehicles, etc.

    200 billion pounds of CO2 each week, from a source that the world’s plants never needed to absorb before, and with less plant biomass than before. And you think that’s not a problem? How long do you really think humanity can metaphorically crap in its own bed before the crap becomes a problem?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Almost every statement in comment 24 is completely and utterly wrong. It’s quite impressive.

    Once the actual “Global Warming” “science” was shown to be a fraud

    Cherry-picking a few graphs and out-of-context quotes from emails is not proof of fraud – except on the part of those doing the cherry-picking.

    it has an effect – just not a “greenhouse” effect.

    Carbon dioxide has been known to be a greenhouse gas for a century and a half. John Tyndall in 1861 demonstrated that CO2 trapped heat, and his observations have been confirmed many, many, many times.

    Not only does more CO2 help feed the world, it helps support more life which, in turn, uses that Oxygen and produces more CO2. It’s called an equilibrium and it’s been proven over and over again.

    Which would be all fine and dandy if human beings weren’t adding extra CO2 from fossil fuel burning. Plants do consume CO2, it’s true – but what you overlook is that it’s not the only thing they consume. They also need, among other things, water. Plant life is already struggling due to lack of rainfall, and natural aquifers are running dry all over the world due to human demand. So even if more CO2 theoretically leads to more plants – what are they supposed to drink?

    Additionally, greenhouse gas theory has be DIS-PROVEN when attempted on a planet because there is no glass ceiling.

    Have you looked at Venus lately?

    It’s NEVER been repeated in an experiment

    Mega-false. See above.

    every attempt to do so has proven no link between CO2 concentrations in an atmosphere that thins and dissipates instead of a room that heats and retains.

    Kindly explain why you think the physical properties of carbon dioxide gas change depending on where it is. You might also want to explain how it is that you are still able to breathe in this atmosphere of ours that “thins and dissipates”.

  • Igor

    Plant life only uses about 2/3 of the CO2 available, the remainder just lingers on. Producing MORE CO2 cannot possibly increase plant life and it’s beneficial byproducts because there’s just not enough existing plantlife. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not increase plant production.

    Equilibrium between CO2 and O2 has long since been unbalanced by human activity, both by producing more CO2 and by reducing plant life, one of the principle ways being the destruction of rain forests for human use.

  • Thatguy

    interesting how a topic about renewable oil turned into an Obama bash…

  • Igor

    Experienced readers of Warrens articles always wonder where he plagiarized (stole) his article from without attribution, so here’s the link to the WSJ article behind a paywall:

    WSJ

    And here’s a cached reference with attribution:
    Warrens victim

    Didn’t the BC editors put a stop to this kind of thievery by Warren awhile ago?

  • C.M.

    To Infinite Spiral: It has been proven that climate chnge is real. No because a few scientists said so…Please google all the many resources the World Health Organization, The World Bank or United Nations have published. You can find data, documents, trends and even coparison statistics from hundreds of years. It is all about education ourselves. I understand we have the tendency of being very “opinionated” about things that we do not have much knowledge. You don’t really need a Harvard Master’s degree to understand basic science but you need a higher degree to undrrstand climate change…unless you live in regions that are already suffering the consequences (Rio de Janeiro, Philipines, France heat weave-2003? Let’s not make climate change a political issue. We can have jobs, nice houses, a great future and mitigate the effects of climate change. Thanks.
    C.M.

  • scott

    Glenn Contrarian states:

    (1) The way the oil market is set up, even if today we found an oil field under Kansas that would supply all America’s needs for the next three centuries, we’d STILL be buying oil from the Middle East and funding people who don’t like us. We know this because we’re an oil exporting nation NOW – we produce more oil than we use – but we’re STILL buying oil from the Middle East. That’s just the way the oil market is set up.

    According to the US EIA, the US consumes approximately 7 billion barrels per year and produces only 2 billion. Not sure how this equals producing more oil than we use? Am I missing something?

%d bloggers like this: