Bye-Bye Oil Companies... As we know them...

[Wild Cobra]

A researcher has formed a new company and recently announced his discoveries after making a process work, and applying for patents. J.C. Bell has developed bacteria that directly creates fuel out of bio mass. This fuel is very clean after the process of not having sulfurs, paraffins, and other contaminates. All this without refineries too! One strain of bacteria creates only diesel for example.

I heard an interview today on the radio and found some info on the web. What I heard from the interview is that the numbers suggest that 75% of our fuel requirements in the USA can be created by the bio waste we already have.

Here's some info from an article;

Researcher: Discovery could end energy crisis (http://www.tiftongazette.com/local/local_story_075215425.html):


A Tifton agricultural researcher says he has found the solution to the world’s energy crisis through genetic modification and cloning of bacterial organisms that can convert bio-mass into hydrocarbons on a grand scale. The local researcher believes his groundbreaking discovery could result in the production of 500 to 1,000 barrels of hydrocarbon fuel per day from the initial production facility. The hydrocarbon fuel — commonly known as oil or fossil fuel when drilled — will require no modification to automobiles, oil pipelines or refineries as they exist today and could forever end the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, he said.


Now that his discoveries have been patented, his corporation formed — Bell Bio-Energy, Inc. — and his government communications established, Bell announced his discoveries to the local press on Friday morning.

Bell said he never considered ethanol for his research. “He who burns his food goes hungry,” Bell said. “That’s an old Chinese proverb.” Instead he concentrated on bio-mass and hydrocarbons. “If it grows it’s bio-mass,” Bell said. Bio-mass is any living or recently dead biological material. Hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon. Decomposed organic matter provides an abundance of carbon and hydrogen and is naturally occurring in crude oil.
Sources for bio-mass to be converted to hydrocarbon fuel are the forestry industry, pulp plants, agriculture and waste derived from the construction and demolition industry.
“This is the ultimate recycling,” Bell said. “Environmentalists should rejoice. We are only using waste products.” Bell said his company would take all of the waste of the plants: The tree limbs and tree tops, husks and cob of the corn, wheat stubble and corn stover.

[ChumpDumper]

The hell is Tifton?

[Extra Stout]

This technology was around 10 years ago.

[boutons_]

We'll see if the VC guys back him.

[boutons_]

Thanks, that was easy.

[xrayzebra]

This technology was around 10 years ago.

How come it was never used? Care to expand on your
comment. I am serious, I have never heard of the
concept.

I just wonder though, with all the new distilleries that have
been built and the farmers involved, will Congress let
the new process ever get into production.

[fyatuk]

How come it was never used? Care to expand on your
comment. I am serious, I have never heard of the
concept.

I just wonder though, with all the new distilleries that have
been built and the farmers involved, will Congress let
the new process ever get into production.

The ability to turn biomass into working fuel has been around quite a while. I think this guy probably just managed to create a cost effective way of doing it.

Now all we need is the personal converter used for the Delorean in Back to the Future II.

[101A]

The ability to turn biomass into working fuel has been around quite a while. I think this guy probably just managed to create a cost effective way of doing it.
Bingo.

There's a related technology turning biomass into plastics - again been around; but only recently made cost-effective.

[RandomGuy]

The hell is Tifton?

Georgia apparently.

That would explain why the guy was working with peanut butter (GA grows a lot of peanuts).

http://bellbioenergy.com/

We'll see where this ends up.

[DarkReign]

So, is this a plausible solution to foreign dependancy?

Obviously this scientist is a pitchman now for his newfound company, so hes going to make this sound like the next big thing.

But is it really?

[RandomGuy]

The ability to turn biomass into working fuel has been around quite a while. I think this guy probably just managed to create a cost effective way of doing it.

Now all we need is the personal converter used for the Delorean in Back to the Future II.

The article didn't say it was cost effective, merely that it was patented.

We have all sorts of green technology, but a lot of it isn't cost effective yet.

The idea is definitely intriguing, but I would remain skeptical until I saw a bit more data on the process.

[fyatuk]

The article didn't say it was cost effective, merely that it was patented.

We have all sorts of green technology, but a lot of it isn't cost effective yet.

The idea is definitely intriguing, but I would remain skeptical until I saw a bit more data on the process.

Logically speaking, if the guys trying to turn it into a successful business using his new tech, it's at least more cost effective than technology that was already out there.

But yeah, we have a lot of green tech that is just horridly not cost effective.

[xrayzebra]

The ability to turn biomass into working fuel has been around quite a while. I think this guy probably just managed to create a cost effective way of doing it.

Now all we need is the personal converter used for the Delorean in Back to the Future II.

In the article WC posted he said he had a way to
genetically alter and clone the bacteria. Maybe that is
his little secret thingy. Produce the bacteria in mass
at a reasonable cost......just a guess.

[RandomGuy]

Logically speaking, if the guys trying to turn it into a successful business using his new tech, it's at least more cost effective than technology that was already out there.

But yeah, we have a lot of green tech that is just horridly not cost effective.

Actually that doesn't logically follow.

There are plenty of business ideas that don't make money. Just because somebody claims that they have a money making machine, doesn't make it so.

Logically, we should "trust but verify" and at least let him do a "proof of principle" run to see if the practical problems can be overcome.

[fyatuk]

Actually that doesn't logically follow.

There are plenty of business ideas that don't make money. Just because somebody claims that they have a money making machine, doesn't make it so.

Logically, we should "trust but verify" and at least let him do a "proof of principle" run to see if the practical problems can be overcome.

That's true. He could be expecting people to pay up the wazzou for "green" fuel.

I should have phrased it as he believes it to be more cost effective, as well.

[Wild Cobra]

This technology was around 10 years ago.
Yes and no. We have observed for a long time that cows, landfills, etc produce methane. Bell's technology takes that idea and improves upon it. He has designed bacteria to make specific fuels at a faster rate than natural.


The ability to turn biomass into working fuel has been around quite a while. I think this guy probably just managed to create a cost effective way of doing it.

He did say something about the cost. Part of it is that he controls the environment this is done in, and the bacteria is reusable.


In the article WC posted he said he had a way to
genetically alter and clone the bacteria. Maybe that is
his little secret thingy. Produce the bacteria in mass
at a reasonable cost......just a guess.
The genetic manipulation part was primarily so it produced a specific hydrocarbon chain.

Imagine, being able to have a wort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wort_%28brewing%29), and instead of fermenting alcohol with yeast, you ferment diesel with bacteria. Now when making ethanol, the best you can do is about 15% alcohol before the yeast dies. With Bell's process, you can produce 100% gasoline or diesel. The bacteria simply makes gas or diesel rather than alcohol. Unlike alcohol, which mixes with the water, making the yeast dormant or dead, these float on top of water! All you need is a separation process, and no energy intensive refining or distillation. The bacteria lives on to make more.


The article didn't say it was cost effective, merely that it was patented.

True, and I didn't hear a cost on the interview. My assumption is that it will be cost effective. The bacteria is reusable, the process proven, and this guy already formed a company to do pilot facilities.



We have all sorts of green technology, but a lot of it isn't cost effective yet.

This is the first high energy process and product I have hope for being a good one. It's a natural process enhanced.



The idea is definitely intriguing, but I would remain skeptical until I saw a bit more data on the process.

Sure, so will I. As for data, just think of the natural decomposition process. It creates a large amount of methane gas. Some sewage facilities already capture and use this gas for making their own energy. It makes perfect sense to be able to improve the speed of the process and breed strains of bacteria to make specific hydrocarbon chains.

This is the first 'renewable fuels' that has my support. Ethanol, bio-diesel, etc. are not practical. This process if as advertised, it truly green, without increasing the burden on mother earth.



Logically, we should "trust but verify" and at least let him do a "proof of principle" run to see if the practical problems can be overcome.
Very true, but I do have a certain belief this is going to pay off. He did say they were going to build plants in various pilot cities. Nothing large scale, but large enough to perfect the process for large scale usage. Not all aspects of things scale in a linear fashion.

[RandomGuy]

He has designed bacteria to make specific fuels at a faster rate than natural.

Faster rate, perhaps. Fast enough to be practical, and economically enough remains to be seen.


spent the last four years, identifying the bacteria that produces hydrocarbon and then finding a way to genetically alter it so that it could produce hydrocarbon in greater volume.

At the pilot plants, the bio-mass will be tested to select bacterial strains, bacterial genetic modification will be tested, revision of production protocols will be established, and a determination will be made of the best method of bio-mass conversion.


I'm not pooh-pooh-ing it, don't get me wrong. As I don't have enough data to say either way, I will wait and see, but I am hopeful. Some kind of technology like this will come along somewhere.

I would think a main problem for Mr. Bell is that what he has done in 4 years mostly with small grants, can be done hellaciously quickly by many other players if it pans out well. With the kinds of profits that oil companies have been making, they can afford to reverse engineer him to death pretty quickly if they try.

Heh, I always find it funny when the real doom-sayers in the "peak oil" movement say that global civilization will just collapse when oil really starts to dry up. Things like this and many others will allow for technology and the free-market system to work their magic, and the end of civilization will have to wait for the next imagined "crisis".

[xrayzebra]

Not quite on topic, but I was watching a show on History channel
the other night about the floating fish factories in Alaskan waters.
One of the things I found really interesting is the fact they take
all the waste, squeeze the fish oil out of it, mix with bunker oil
and burn it as fuel for the vessel. Hey they don't waste anything
on those ships. The remainder of the waste is converted into
fish meal. Another little thing was that quite a lot of the fish
goes to McDonalds for their fish sandwichs.

[Wild Cobra]

Faster rate, perhaps. Fast enough to be practical, and economically enough remains to be seen.

I agree, but the probablilty is very hgh in my opinion.



I'm not pooh-pooh-ing it, don't get me wrong. As I don't have enough data to say either way, I will wait and see, but I am hopeful. Some kind of technology like this will come along somewhere.

Well, I would be more skeptical normally except this makes perfect sense and is a simple process. Still, I could be wrong.



I would think a main problem for Mr. Bell is that what he has done in 4 years mostly with small grants, can be done hellaciously quickly by many other players if it pans out well. With the kinds of profits that oil companies have been making, they can afford to reverse engineer him to death pretty quickly if they try.

Maybe so. If I remember right, it should take about six months to build and start the facilities they plan. He has kept this all very quiet until the patent process was done. As for reverse engineering a patent? Good luck.

If this pans out, I'm sure he will have investors lining up! I don't have any disposable money right now, but if I did, I would see about getting in on this. I've had as much as $36,000 I could gamble with on stocks in the past.



Heh, I always find it funny when the real doom-sayers in the "peak oil" movement say that global civilization will just collapse when oil really starts to dry up. Things like this and many others will allow for technology and the free-market system to work their magic, and the end of civilization will have to wait for the next imagined "crisis".

Yep!

We are an innovative society. We tend to always step up to the plate one way or another.

[velik_m]

Think of the possibilities! - people are bio mass too... :devil

[RandomGuy]

Maybe so. If I remember right, it should take about six months to build and start the facilities they plan. He has kept this all very quiet until the patent process was done. As for reverse engineering a patent? Good luck..

Chip manufacturers do it all the time with competitors "patented" chips.

In this case the patent is simply on additions to freely available bacteria.

The bacterial genome that he used as his starting point cannot be patented, and THAT is the logical and easy place to start.

Mr. Bell did all this in 4 years mostly by himself, I would imagine, and with a budget of what? a million per year? (not sure about the exact figure, but if the start up is small, I doubt it took much)


Imagine, say Exxon Mobile, who spent 15 billion on capital investments last year, or any of the larger pharmecuticals who routinely spend billions and are usually partnered with various firms invovled in genetics can probably catch up pretty darn fast if they chose to dive in.

If there are really profits on a large scale to be had, you can bet yer bumpkin that somebody with some DEEP pockets will try and horn in on the action, with the result of the whole thing getting done in a big way.

Hooray capitalism. :clap

[Wild Cobra]

RG, I don't think it's that simple. They would have to come up with a different bacteria that does the same thing, and sometimes, the process itself is patented. I'll bet in this case it is. In the case of CPU chips, they are not identical. The newer chips themselves have a patent but the process of logic they impliment has long ago lost patents. They simply implement the same logic with a different process. Notice AMD cannot call the Athalon a Pentium. Names are also parts of what a patents usage.

However... I could be wrong here. I just hope this process is real. They theory is sound and I hope I'm not placing udue faith in it.

[xrayzebra]

RG, I don't think it's that simple. They would have to come up with a different bacteria that does the same thing, and sometimes, the process itself is patented. I'll bet in this case it is. In the case of CPU chips, they are not identical. The newer chips themselves have a patent but the process of logic they impliment has long ago lost patents. They simply implement the same logic with a different process. Notice AMD cannot call the Athalon a Pentium. Names are also parts of what a patents usage.

However... I could be wrong here. I just hope this process is real. They theory is sound and I hope I'm not placing udue faith in it.

WC the process will never be accepted by the folks on
the hill and environmental wacko's. His process would
still leave a carbon footprint. God forbid we use
carbon in any manner. I just surprised they don't
ban lead pencils.
:lol

Hell they wont even let them drill for the oil we now
have and wont until the populace threatens to lynch
them.

[Phenomanul]

A researcher has formed a new company and recently announced his discoveries after making a process work, and applying for patents. J.C. Bell has developed bacteria that directly creates fuel out of bio mass. This fuel is very clean after the process of not having sulfurs, paraffins, and other contaminates. All this without refineries too! One strain of bacteria creates only diesel for example.

I heard an interview today on the radio and found some info on the web. What I heard from the interview is that the numbers suggest that 75% of our fuel requirements in the USA can be created by the bio waste we already have.

Here's some info from an article;

Researcher: Discovery could end energy crisis (http://www.tiftongazette.com/local/local_story_075215425.html):

ummm...
Diesel is composed primarily of parrafins (saturated hydrocarbon chains).

Any stock options??? :hungry: :hungry:

[Extra Stout]

http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Archive/Fuel/Research/Holtzapple/holtzapple.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioconversion_of_biomass_to_mixed_alcohol_fuels

[Wild Cobra]

ummm...
Diesel is composed primarily of parrafins (saturated hydrocarbon chains).

Any stock options??? :hungry: :hungry:
Yes diesel can have paraffin in it. Diesel hydrocarbon chains range from C10H20 to C15H28. Paraffin normally range from 15 to 40 carbon atoms. In diesel, it's common form is C15H32. The process can make exacting chains free of unwanted ones. Note that paraffin is technically a definition of a formula. Methane is a paraffin! Octane is a paraffin. The formula is CnH2n+2. Most of the chemical chains do not follow that definition. as their hydrogen atoms are not the value of carbon atoms times two plus one.

Gasoline contains hydrocarbon chains of 5 to 12 carbon atoms. Commonly 8 to 10. The ration of hydrogen is different yet I believe.

This is, the process makes a specific hydrocarbon chain only. It can make 100% C10H20 for example. The potential for future clean burning is phenomenal. With only one chemistry in the mix, computer controlled engines will burn even cleaner. Catalyst fuel cells can be used that nearly 100% utilize the energy, or even convert to electricity and another liquid that can then go back to a recycling process.

[Phenomanul]

Diesel includes hydrocarbon chains up to C22...

[Wild Cobra]

Diesel includes hydrocarbon chains up to C22...
OK, maybe so. Still, the point is that a pure fuel can be make by this bio method.

[Ya Vez]

I putting my money on the North Dakota oil field..
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

[Wild Cobra]

I putting my money on the North Dakota oil field..
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
Well, it's been two months since that article came out. Have you followed the progress at all?

I'm curious to how real that info is.

[RandomGuy]

Well, it's been two months since that article came out. Have you followed the progress at all?

I'm curious to how real that info is.

A quick google shows it was released on the 10th.


http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

or

click here (http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911)



Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.

New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007.

The USGS Bakken study was undertaken as part of a nationwide project assessing domestic petroleum basins using standardized methodology and protocol as required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000.

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.

"It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."

The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.

USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.

Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana - the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.

At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold.
The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.

Results of the assessment can be found at http://energy.usgs.gov.

For a podcast interview with scientists about the Bakken Formation, listen to episode 38 of CoreCast at http://www.usgs.gov/corecast/.



One note of context:

"technically recoverable" in this case does not equate to "economically recoverable"

A barrel of oil might be technically recoverable, but cost $1,000 dollars to get at, so don't count all the chickens before they hatch.

Still at 112 bucks for a barrel and climbing "technically recoverable" and "economically recoverable" creep closer to each other.

Again, one simply has to wonder at the amount of energy that must be invested to get that barrel of oil out of the ground and into a usable form. That is the ultimate arbiter of the importance of any oil formation.

[Wild Cobra]

"technically recoverable" in this case does not equate to "economically recoverable"

A barrel of oil might be technically recoverable, but cost $1,000 dollars to get at, so don't count all the chickens before they hatch.

Still at 112 bucks for a barrel and climbing "technically recoverable" and "economically recoverable" creep closer to each other.

Again, one simply has to wonder at the amount of energy that must be invested to get that barrel of oil out of the ground and into a usable form. That is the ultimate arbiter of the importance of any oil formation.
I agree. The 2/13/08 article stated the cost would be $20-$40 a barrel, but that was in 1991 dollars. What would inflation that that to? We also have to remember estimates are intentionally low most the time to get the ball rolling. I would guess that it could cost $100 per barrel give or take a bit. If the 1991 range was correct, what would it be? Maybe $40 to $80? I don't know the inflation between 1991 to 2008. Just guessed at 1:2. At this range, the owners could make some good money, especially if it isn't very heavy or sour.

Remember now for the $112 figure to be right by what you say, it must be light sweet crude. The market value of oil varies by quality.

I actually did a quick wiki, and it was there:

Bakken Formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation)

It has some interesting info too.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, I read that bit after Ray pointed it out.

[boutons_]

GM Announces New Cellulosic Ethanol Partnership with Mascoma Corp. (http://gas2.org/2008/05/01/gm-announces-new-cellulosic-ethanol-partnership-with-mascoma-corp/)



Greenhouse gas savings: 90-95% reduction when compared to gasoline.
Commercial stage water use: 2-3 gallons water per gallon ethanol produced (compared to Coskata’s 1 gallon).
Commercial stage net energy balance: around 1:8-10 (8 to 10 units of energy produced for each put in). Mascoma says they’re currently getting an energy return of 1:5.5 in the lab. http://gas2.org/2008/05/01/gm-announces-new-cellulosic-ethanol-partnership-with-mascoma-corp/

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

I doubt any of these startups will really bother the oilco's.

1 gal of biofuel requires 3 gallons of water?

Same problem as nuclear, where ya gonna get the water?

[jochhejaam]

In 1967 scientists' stated that we had a 40 year supply of oil left, today they are saying that we have 30 years of known reserves and an estimated 50 years worth yet to be discovered.

Scientist Giora Proskurow says there is an endless supply of oil;


Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply

Posted: February 01, 2008

A study published in <the prestigious> 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.

The lead scientist on the study ? of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle ? says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.

The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.

While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.

The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons.

Lost City is a hypothermal field some 2,100 feet below sea level that sits along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, noted for strange 90 to 200 foot white towers on the sea bottom.

In 2003 and again in 2005, Proskurowski and his team descended in a scientific submarine to collect liquid bubbling up from Lost City sea vents.

Proskurowski found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor.

Carbon 13 is the carbon isotope scientists associate with abiotic origin, compared to Carbon 12 that scientists typically associate with biological origin.


Lost City Vents

Proskurowski argued that the hydrocarbons found in the natural hydrothermal fluids coming out of the Lost City sea vents is attributable to abiotic production by Fischer-Tropsch, or FTT, reactions.

The Fischer-Tropsch equations were first developed by Nazi scientists who created methodologies for producing synthetic oil from coal.

"Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water and moderate amounts of heat," Proskurowski wrote.

The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth's mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.

Affirming this point, Proskurowski concluded the article by noting, "Hydrocarbon production by FTT could be a common means for producing precursors of life-essential building blocks in ocean-floor environments or wherever warm ultramafic rocks are in contact with water."

Finding abiotic hydrocarbons in the Lost City sea vent fluids is the second discovery in recent years adding weight to the abiotic theory of the origin of oil.

As WND reported in 2005, a NASA probe to Titan, the giant moon of Saturn, discovered abundant Carbon-13 methane that the agency declared to be abiotic in origin.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

[RandomGuy]

Man, I had a big argument with a conspiracy theorist about abiotic oil at one point. It was a typical conversation in which some bit of truth or science got completely twisted to fit the worldview of the paranoid underground.

Either way, we are still using it at a rate vastly greater than it is being created.

[Yonivore]

Man, I had a big argument with a conspiracy theorist about abiotic oil at one point. It was a typical conversation in which some bit of truth or science got completely twisted to fit the worldview of the paranoid underground.

Either way, we are still using it at a rate vastly greater than it is being created.
How do you know? There are vast fields yet to be drilled.

[G-Nob]

Big oil wont let this happen. There is too much money changing hands in Washington to make this successful.

[Agloco]

In 1967 scientists' stated that we had a 40 year supply of oil left, today they are saying that we have 30 years of known reserves and an estimated 50 years worth yet to be discovered.

Scientist Giora Proskurow says there is an endless supply of oil;


Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply



The earth has finite mass.

Makes no sense to me.

[Agloco]

Big oil wont let this happen. There is too much money changing hands in Washington to make this successful.

Or they'll simply get on the ship and hijack it.

Oil companies aren't concerned with what medium they're peddling, just that they are the only ones doing the peddling.

[RandomGuy]

How do you know? There are vast fields yet to be drilled.

We are transitioning from single "vast fields" to a lot of smaller and mis-size ones that play out quicker.

We will indeed find a few of these larger fields, but we are simply not finding it as fast as we are pumping it.

A quick glance at recoverable barrels discovered versus yearly amounts drilled shows this. The former is smaller than the latter.

Down the slope of the Peak we go.

[RandomGuy]

In 1967 scientists' stated that we had a 40 year supply of oil left, today they are saying that we have 30 years of known reserves and an estimated 50 years worth yet to be discovered.

If we simply used 1967 technology, those scientists would have been roughly right.

We have gotten better at both finding new fields and extending the lives of existing ones.

There is an ultimate limit to anything though. One problem with estimating what is left is that there is every incentive on the part of people who provide the data to inflate the figures for political reasons.

We'll see. I think the balance of evidence is on the side of the Peak Oil theory, and that we have passed or are very close to that peak.

The theory does not say that oil will not be around in 10 years, just that there won't be as much of it, and that it will be waaay more expensive.