It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Enough Oil Below Ocean Floor To Last 50 000 years

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Hey guys,

Came accross and interesting journal article at my school library today. It was about world oil supply. Long story short: the author claimed, that using conservative estimates, there is enough oil below most of the ocean floor to meet current consumption levels for 50 000 years. He stressed that this was a very "conservative" estimate and that the real number is more likely in the 6 digit range. He said the problem is not whether we will run out of oil, but rather whether technology could catch up in time to access all this oil which is extremely deep below the ocean before our land fields run dry.

I thought this was a fascinating fact. If we could tap into this resource we will never have to worry about oil running dry. 50 000 years... That's crazy.

He also went on to discuss that Kuwait is running dry in oil, Saudi Arabia has a "Half a Cup Of Oil" left (term he used saying their fields are below %50 now) and that the middle east is lying about it's true oil supply.

Anyway thought this was pretty interesting stuff, and wanted to share.


Cayoo




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
As long as you don't believe this, it is ok.

At over 82 millions barrels per day x 159 liter/barrel / 1000 for m3.

Knowing that the earth crust is less than 30 km in thickness (nothing was drill past 12 km), after 100,000 years, you will have eaten a big big chunk of the earth crust (in volume).

Unless you believe that the center of the earth is like a big nuggat full of oil.

It just doesn't add up.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Even if that was possible imagine how much damage would be done the earth after 50,000 years of using fossil fuels... Global warming gone crazy. Money should be put into deveolping alternative fuels not developing new way to drill for oil.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
interesting theory. but do you have any links or the name of the publication or anything? i'd like to read this myself.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Even if this was true, which I really, really doubt.

What purpose would it (drilling oil from under the ocean floors) serve, it would destroy the environment.

Oil just is'nt the way to go.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL
As long as you don't believe this, it is ok.

At over 82 millions barrels per day x 159 liter/barrel / 1000 for m3.

Knowing that the earth crust is less than 30 km in thickness (nothing was drill past 12 km), after 100,000 years, you will have eaten a big big chunk of the earth crust (in volume).

Unless you believe that the center of the earth is like a big nuggat full of oil.

It just doesn't add up.



Popeye:

The author used identitical methods of volume estimation as used currently to estimate oil amounts in newly found "fields". He also used the most conservative out of those methods (i.e. he assumed that it was a "worst case scenario all over the ocean).

I'm not sure whether or not it is 100% true, but I do believe it is 100% possible. Do you not realize how vast our oceans are? They cover the majority of our planet. If we have been living off of oil for this long mainly from 2 small chunks of land (Texas and S.A.) why couldn't we live off of all the oil in the ocean for that long? Heck: Look at how small S.A. and Texas are and how much oil is below them. Now imagine the oceans... Makes sense to me!




interesting theory. but do you have any links or the name of the publication or anything? i'd like to read this myself.


pkpao:

I did not read it online. I read it in a economic journal in my school library. I go to the library like 3 times a week and I could find this journal again if you would like the Name of the author and of the article....


Cayoo



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Cayoo,

You must understand that the statement you made-enough oil for 50K years, is very different from what we have heard.

Do to this fact, most everyone on this board would like some proof of this statement.

We here at ATS are an openj minded group-for the most part- but not a group who blindly accepts what anyone says-w/o proof.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Cayoo,

You must understand that the statement you made-enough oil for 50K years, is very different from what we have heard.

Do to this fact, most everyone on this board would like some proof of this statement.

We here at ATS are an openj minded group-for the most part- but not a group who blindly accepts what anyone says-w/o proof.



I can scan a few pages and throw them up on image dump or some other site. I mean, I read what I read. Granted it's one of the only articles I've come across on this particular topic. It did seem legit to me and it was published in a jounral.

Cayoo

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Cayoo]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cayoo[/I]
Hey, Came across an interesting article at my school library. It was about world oil supply. The author claimed there is enough oil below the ocean floor to meet current consumption levels for 50,000 years. He said the problem is not whether we will run out of oil, but whether technology could catch up in time to access all this oil which is extremely deep below the ocean before our land fields run dry. I thought this was fascinating. If we could tap into this resource we will never have to worry about oil running dry. 50 000 years . . That's crazy. He also went on to discuss that Kuwait is running dry in oil, Saudi Arabia has a "Half a Cup Of Oil" left and that the middle east is lying about it's true oil supply. Anyway thought this was pretty interesting stuff, and wanted to share. Cayoo


There are two men who have written books and discussed the books on CSpan2 in the past 4-5 months. Matthew Simmons is one who is mentioned on several threads here at ATS and another fellow I liked a lot but I have not seen his name here. I can’t recall his name. The second fellow is notable for relating the mathematical formula of determining the amount of UNDISCOVERED oil remaining. He bases the formula on a world model using the U.S. as the sample, because the U.S. has had more wells drilled than any other 3,000,000 square miles on earth. The only mega field in the U.S. was the East Texas field discovered in the1940s. It is now pumped out. Currently, only one other mega field is pumping, the one in n/e Saudi Arabia.

Simmons is notable because he asserts that the only time the Middle East oil fields were surveyed was in the early 1970s when the Arabs moved into the production companies and the amount of oil in reserve was needed to be known to set buy-sell prices, and etc.

We know that nearly 70% of the earth’s surface is under water. Unfortunately, the geology does not point to the same kind of earth underlying the sea floor. The ocean floor is but 70 million years old, whereas most oil fields are 200-300 million years in the forming. The ocean floor is subducting at the plate boundaries. The areas were we are pumping oil at sea are found on the continental shelves. That is the same earth that underlays dry land.

The least optimistic estimates say we have 100 years of oil left at current consumption rates, and the most optimistic estimate say 200 years. None of the estimate include the oil tars in Canada nor the shale in the Colorado area. Likewise there is oil and gas in Siberia that has not been well explored.

I want America to SAVE ANWR for the time when the world’s other oil fields are running out or are all pumped out. Then we will have oil under our own jurisdiction and can pump it then when we really need it. And not be subjected to blackmail.


[edit on 3/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I believe it!

There is a lot of oil left! Just think about it... Africa and Antarctica and Northern Glacier Covered Canada and same for Northern Russia. Are still for the most part UNTAPPED Resourses. The Falkland Islands have tons of oil just off their coast. New Jersey and California have Oil Fields off of the coast as well...however legislation prohibits drilling off the coast of a public beach. Then there is the oil fields in Alaska.

Who Profits from you believing that we are running out of oil, that supplies are low...think about it... Who is reporting RECORD EARNINGS quarter after quarter non-stop...who profited from Katrina...Think about it...Don't Be Fooled!

However, I want a new fuel that would be more ecologicly safe and efficient...If for no other reason than to see the profits go somewhere else than the OIL Cabals...oh and to save the world from fossil fuel dioxides and gasses.

God save the Democracy!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Even if this were true, which I also highly doubt, the amount of energy it would take to drill, mine, and then refine Oil deep in the crust, underneat thousands of feet of Ocean, would most likely drop the ratio to under 1 barrel used up for every 2 recovered. Back in the the olde days, oil pressure under the ground was so high, that a stray bullet would have sent it bubbling up, and sometimes spurting out of the ground.

Back then the ratio was 90 to 1, 1 barrel consumed for every 90 recovered. Right now the ratio stands at 3 to 1, and is dropping fairly steadily. The primary beneficiaries of this scarcity are the drillers, though eventually even their margins will start to get squeezed, as they will need to put more and more energy into pumping the oil out and pumping CO2, Water, etc. into the resovoir to increase pressure to make it cheaper to pump the black crack out. The refineries profit margins are getting squeezed, as are the gas stations, shipping companies who rely on fuel to transport Oil and Fuel from A to B, and finally the Consumer.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
that's incredulous ... 500 centuries of some quality of petroleum = 'C'

i recall that the popular idea is that oil is a result of decomposed fauna & flora, over great spans of time.

on the other hand, the crust portion of the earth is supposed to be floating atop of molten magma...and the floating 'plates' of crust are subducted at certain areas and new sea floor created at the deep ocean ridges.

so something just dosen't add up if we consider factual & true the 2 systems/theories stated above.

A) a lot of the deep ocean seabed is younger than 200 million years old,
because it is newly created in the conveyor belt called 'plate tectonics'

B) unless the seafloor is a natural 'oil sink'...the accepted explaination of oil creation from the decay of fossil animals and ancient bio-mass, would not account for the speculated abundance of deep ocean lakes of oil. As the deep oceans are mostly barren & desolate worlds...and scavangers would eat up any bio-mass that percipated down to the ocean floor.

ergo: A & B are correct = then C is a fantastic claim
or else A & B are incorrect = and there is 50,000 years of oil supply down there



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Well, actually, I don't find the concept of having enough oil for our needs being available for centuries to come outlandish.
www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">NEWS: Rand Corp Study: U.S. has enough oil for 400 years!

The Rand Report study stated that there was enough oil in the United States to last the U.S. for the next four centuries. Of course, the oil is locked into shale and it would be an expensive process to extract. However, with the rise in the per barrel price of oil, it could become an economically feasible resource in a very short time. We might run out of money to fill our tanks before we run out of oil.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
What is the name of the journal you read? When was it published?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Can there be enough oil for years to come? The short answer yes and the reason why is because things can change so quick. We went from whale blubber to petro and we have been using oil for about 100 years or more, but in that hundred years we have found nuclear technology and other technologies that have brought down the use of oil (wind, solar, hydro, etc...) today. We would be using much much more oil without these technologies. So in the next many years to come people will develope things to drive down the use of oil though it is hardly seen because of the population growth, but in time we will see it. I have read about countries wanting to mine astroids for fuel and other minerals. Think more like technology will allow oil to be around for many years to come just as technology saved the whales.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
One day we are going to have to move away from the polluting money obscenity that is oil.....why not the next few years....why prolong the enitable and further subject the planet to monetary influenced enviromental issues?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Well, actually, I don't find the concept of having enough oil for our needs being available for centuries to come outlandish.
www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">NEWS: Rand Corp Study: U.S. has enough oil for 400 years!


That is always the same with these lavish statement, they say:

"That could meet a quarter of the nation's current oil needs for the next 400 years"

First it is only a quarter of the nation current oil need.

Second the key word here is: "current oil needs", but since the current oil need ain't going to stay constant, if in 100 years, the demand increase by a factor of 2 or 4, then your 400 years has to be divided by the same amount.

But what people remember is WOW, 400 years, let buy another SUV, Yuppie, LOL.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Alot of the untapped oil left is in the hard to get Artic regions. A estimated 1/4 of all remaining natural resources on earth.

In the case of the Northern Artic Russia is in the process of claiming over half the resource rights with the rest divided between the US, Canada and I think Norway.

As for the Antartic I dont know that could be anyones or nobodys I dont really know if anyone can claim resource rights there.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Cayoo,

If you could just scan the first page of the article you read (make sure it is the one with the title and author), that would be great.

With most of the Earth's surface covered with water, and the majority of that un-explored, it is not unreasonable to believe we COULD have many more years of hydrocarbon reserves (heck, that's not out of the question with the untapped reserves on land, such as the CAR, Russia, Venezuela, etc.). But as many have said, and for many reasons expressed (pollution, an eventually dying reserve, etc.), we need to be moving toward a smarter energy system. And I'm not ready to agree with the time estimate on this.

Nonetheless, I look forward to seeing what you can provide on this.


[edit on 3-7-2006 by Valhall]


Ra

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
My cousin has worked in the oilly biz for many years now and I asked him about this when I stumbled upon this fact online.

He told me that this is nothing new, we've known about the massive reserves under both the Pacific and the Atlantic, as well as smaller deposits that are already being tapped in the Indian Ocean and in the Med.

The problem is the massive costs reaching some of these large underwater oil deposits would be prohibitive and cause the prices at the pump to at least triple or worse.

I think the money would be better spent finding new technologies and new fuel sources or just improving our current existing technologies such as fuel cells or hybrids that use ethanol or solar energy to power our vehicles.

I think the money being spent on this War for Oil would also be better spent on creating or enhancing technology. For all we know, one of the youngsters being mutillated and killed would have done just that had they not been sent to that unjust War in the Hell Hole known as Iraq!!




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join