Is tectonic activity the real source of oil? Should we be using it?
We missed this item recently about a major new oil find off the coast of Brazil. If current estimates pan out, there may be as much as 33 billion barrels of crude oil in the new sub-Atlantic field. That would make the new find the third largest reserve in the world and it could be a huge boon to Brazil. Over at Motor Trend, there is an interesting piece that relates to this find about the late astrophysicist Thomas Gold. In 1999, Gold speculated that in a paper that fossil fuels were anything but.
In "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Gold theorized that oil is actually produced continuously within the earth by microbial processes and pressure from tectonic plates rather than by decomposition, as long believed. The recent Russian oil finds at depths of up to 40,000 ft tend to support this theory. If this is in fact the case then it raises some important questions going forward. Even if diminishing oil supplies are no longer actually a problem, the issue of global climate change remains. If we are to address that problem, then should we use these new oil finds? On the other hand perhaps we should research this theory in more depth and try to understand just how it might work and how long it takes. Is there a possibility that oil could become a renewable resource? Could we possibly help to feed it by using carbon sequestration to pump CO2 back deep into the earth? At this point we have far more questions than answers.
[Source: Motor Trend]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Joseph 2:08PM (4/20/2008)
If this theory is correct, it still wouldn't matter.
If fossil fuels are produced in a microbial process, it's obvious that that process isn't fast enough to keep up with demand. Besides, burning fossil fuels isn't exactly the best thing for the environment.
If we discover these mirco-organisms that do this process, maybe, just maybe, scientists can learn to copy this process.
Reply
Ping 2:13PM (4/20/2008)
I will drive my car until oil hits $10/gallon. At that point, I will consider the oil supply to be "exhausted"
Reply
A.Brien 3:09PM (4/20/2008)
it's full of oil and natural gas everywhere in gigantic quantity. It's just that since 1973 it's been monopolize by c.i.a and in 2001 they monopolyzed civil liberties. They are eating humanity since then.
Reply
meme 3:17PM (4/20/2008)
This theory is widely regarded in the scientific community as pseudoscience. Oil in rock at 40,000 feet means that kerogenous rock ended up at least 40,000 feet below the surface, and there was a trap at 40,000 feet. Nothing more.
And no, there's absolutely no chance of running out of oil. Bare minimum, any source of syngas can be turned into oil relatively cheaply. It's all about infrastructure, which in turn is about estimating what the price of oil will be 5-10 years in the future.
Reply
Mike Z 4:09PM (4/20/2008)
Oil is merely Carbon and Hydrogen, nether of which are scarce in the least.
The real issue is that currently we rely on sources that mother nature cooked up for us over millions of years, as the pot was only so big--so eventually we're going to have to learn to cook for ourselves.
Reply
iHero 6:31PM (4/20/2008)
Very interesting -- I always thought about the amounts of bio matter needed to produce all that oil -- now the earth may not be flat after all too...
Reply
meme 7:36PM (4/20/2008)
Very well put, Mike. We can make oil from almost anything, and have been able to since early in the 1900s. Unfortunately, the worse of a source you use, the more energy it takes. In the worst case, using just CO2 from the atmosphere and hydrogen from H2O, it becomes an energy sink instead of an energy source. That doesn't prevent it from being used (oil's rather expensive as an energy source anyways); it's just far from ideal. Ideal is to be able to drill a shallow well and have light sweet crude pump itself up for you ;)
Reply
jmspearman 8:46PM (4/20/2008)
Renewable resource? You are like the Fox News of green blogging. We have more than enough wind and sun to go around, but thanks to plentiful/cheap/easy coal and oil we haven't bothered. Whatever you think of global warming, pollution is a reality and I'm tired of breathing dirty air.
Reply
Mort 10:33PM (4/20/2008)
I agree, forget GW, pollution uber-sux.
Reply
Mark 12:38AM (4/21/2008)
Lord, someone is still spreading this crap?
This is a profoundly stupid theory that completely ignores the geochemistry, stratigraphy, and history of oil exploration. It could only have been developed by someone who was completely ignorant of geology, and that it's still being passed around is a testimony to gullibility.
First it was the "hey, it was a cold winter at my house, so global warming is a farce!" post, and now this. What's next?
Reply
EVan 1:11AM (4/21/2008)
From post, "At this point we have far more questions than answers."
I have ton's of questions including... Why was this post even made?
Read a geology book PLEASE! This is about as scientifically sound as saying that the Atlanteans are making all of the oil in their underground empire.
Reply
Rick 10:21AM (4/21/2008)
And this theory is the reason American children, and America in general, are falling behind in science when compared to other countries. What next, 'crystal power' and meditation?
Reply
tankd0g 11:24AM (4/21/2008)
I don't know why people find this theory so hard to believe. It's not like he's saying oil is as renewable as lumber. Just that the process by which it is formed is different than previously thought. It changes nothing, and actually makes a hell of a lot more sense. Thinking rock has sunk 40,000ft since the dinosaurs were around, that's just plain silly. Many of these so called organic compounds like methane are found on planets like Jupiter where we are resonably sure there is no compost heap.
Reply
ug 1:23PM (4/21/2008)
Source: Motor Trend.
Nuff said??
Reply
Joe_thousandaire 9:25PM (4/21/2008)
"should we use these new oil finds?" Seriously, with the skyrocketing price of oil effectively crippling the economy worldwide, causing the overall price of all goods to rise, raising the cost of living for every person on the planet. Despite this you would seriously consider not using a newfound (possibly cheap) source of energy? Sometimes it seems you environmentalist types just hate humanity itself.
Reply
Jim 10:23PM (4/21/2008)
"This theory is widely regarded in the scientific community as pseudoscience"
Same was said once for lots of things that pass for proven science now. If there's one thing we should learn from looking at the history of "science", it's that the road from the past is littered with scientists who were absolutely sure they had it all figured out. And were toatlly wrong. Why should it be any different now?
Reply
Chris M 1:14AM (4/24/2008)
I also find that theory to be dubious. It was once tested by drilling an extra-deep well in an area that conventional theory said oil didn't exist, the results were negative.
There are some examples of a new theory being initially scoffed at that eventually came to be accepted, but there are far more examples of new theories that were proven to be false and totally demolished.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 6:38AM (4/26/2008)
"...crippling the economy worldwide, causing the overall price of all goods to rise, raising the cost of living for every person on the planet"
Joe_thousandaire, do you realize that what you are describing is a addicted economy going through withdrawl symptoms?
I would certainly advocate using new energy sources, but only if it's part of a comprehensive and workable plan to get us off of our oil addiction, once and for all.
Otherwise, you're only giving a junkie yet another fix. That doesn't solve the problem, only temporarily relieves the symptoms, and before long the junkie just needs another fix and we're right back where we started.
Reply
JamesC 9:04AM (4/21/2009)
Tectonic oil production:
It's an old Soviet idea that re-surfaces every now and again.
It's wrong. Incorrect. Dead as a dodo.
This is perfectly clear once you're aware of a few things:
- The component hydrocarbon chains bear fingerprints of the organisms from which they are derived: Mostly plants.
- Oils contain biogenic markers that cannot be explained other than by biosynthesis.
- Finally: The carbon dating isotope fraction rules out continuous oil production
As I said - it's an old idea, and it's been ruled out.
Reply