I think it is well known how oil is made, from tiny dead plants and animals that, over millions of years, are introduced to extreme pressures and heat, which make the soil around them into rock, then making the once tiny pants and animals into oil. Now is it possible with our technology to reinact this pressure and heat to speed up this process of making oil. When I first thought about it, it seeme quite farfetched! But i still posted, because maybe research has already been done, or this had already been attempted, if any of this has idk. However, the real question, is "is this possible"?

changing world technologies has a plant that is currently doing this to turkey by products.

the process is called thermal depolymerization.

I am no scientist, but my first thought is that oil has a net energy greater than the energy required to pump it out of the ground and into your car. Oil has many other uses as well, but this isn't my point.

The work of heat and pressure on dead bio matter was a free gift of geologic time to which if we tried to reproduce it in a lab, would mean we would have to put in more energy to convert bio matter into oil. The final product would yield less energy than what was put into it.

This is the problem with our current energy sources. If they take more energy in processing and conversion by production, then they become an energy carrier. They may be a source of fuel for something, but it requires more energy in converting them than the original source. This is why oil is our Godsend right now, because I believe I read, it contains 5 fold the energy used to extract, refine, and distribute it.

No doubt though that we could create an oil like substance in a lab. I just don't believe it would be a solution to our current dillema.

Originally posted by ben91069
I am no scientist, but my first thought is that oil has a net energy greater than the energy required to pump it out of the ground and into your car. Oil has many other uses as well, but this isn't my point.

The work of heat and pressure on dead bio matter was a free gift of geologic time to which if we tried to reproduce it in a lab, would mean we would have to put in more energy to convert bio matter into oil. The final product would yield less energy than what was put into it.

That's pretty much it. Sure, there are all kinds of ways to get energy--we can use oil sands, or drill much deeper, in geologically/technically difficult places (deep sea/Antarctica), covert coal to oil, or, yes, we can convert biomass to oil via pressure and temperature. But all of things are energy/capital intensive processes, and usually prohibitively so.

(posted by Tondo)
I think it is well known how oil is made, from tiny dead plants and animals that, over millions of years, are introduced to extreme pressures and heat, which make the soil around them into rock, then making the once tiny pants and animals into oil.

Tiny? I thought the theory of the organic origin of oil involved life forms having all sizes, which is why the logotype of Sinclair Oil is a brontosaurus (?).

Anyway, that's only one of the theories. There's also the theory of the inorganic origin of oil, and I'm trying to remember what I read about it months ago: that it was developed many years ago by a Soviet geologist and that it has led to the recent or relatively recent discovery of oilfields in Russia, which would be proof of its veracity.
*

yea, im sure that it is possible. is it possible now? im not sure, but with the constant perseverance of man, im sure it will be done.

You can make artificial oil from coal, the problem is it requires more energy to do it then you receive. You have to be in dire straits to want to do that. It's no way to run an economy.

The German Army did it in WWII after they were cut off from their major sources of oil: Romania and the Russian oil fields of the Caucasus. They had lots of coal. But they were still chronically short of fuel throughout the war and of course what little they could produce went only to the military. Civilians simply didn't drive, and the German people didn't have many civilian cars to begin with. The domestic economy wasn't dependent on trucks but on rails for transport.

There are companies and scientists today that are trying to make efficient coal to liquid fuel processes, but I haven't heard of anything successful. It's also a very polluting process.

More likely is 'LPG', liquid petroleum gas, e.g. propane like for your BBQ.

Partway between natural gas, (CH4) and petroleum. Even a few years ago a fair
number of taxis in Australia ran on LPG, because it was cheaper than petrol.
Disadvantage was that it took more space to store.

CH4 is going to have to be the next source after oil. No way around it.

LNG and LPG tankers will be the blood of civilization.

Things are REALLY going to hit the fan after global Peak Gas. That's probably
30 years out.

Originally posted by ben91069
I am no scientist, but my first thought is that oil has a net energy greater than the energy required to pump it out of the ground and into your car.
The work of heat and pressure on dead bio matter was a free gift of geologic time to which if we tried to reproduce it in a lab, would mean we would have to put in more energy to convert bio matter into oil. The final product would yield less energy than what was put into it.

the EPR for oil is actually much higher, in texas the oil EPR was as high as 100 (it takes one barrel of oil to extract 100 barrels of oil, which leaves with a profit of 99 barrels). T.D. has an EROEI of 85%, meaning per 100 units of energy you get a 85 units return.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by picklejuice]