It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Mr. Gold may indeed be quite intelligent with a number of credentials, but that is hardly qualification to merely gesture away many decades of literally rock-solid petrology. Moreover, it is highly dubious that he ever studied core samples, wireline logs or any of the manifold accouterments of exploration petroleum geology. While he might be a hit at cocktail parties for graduate students, he would do better to consult with geophysicists and petroleum engineers. Especially so, prior to positing a panacea to petroleum problems vis-a-vis pencil and paper hypotheses. It looks like you never read the whole article. Also, as I mentioned, he has written a book on this subject, The Deep Hot Biosphere. He has done all the things that you mention, the man is not stupid and will not be taken for a fool. It doesn't take someone (especially someone like Thomas Gold) to long to learn a new subject in depth - just the effort, time, and energy. Read the article (and the book) before jumping to conclusions. All you read were the excerpts I posted, and it is most apparent.
Oil shales and sands, which I mentioned a few posts prior to yours, could be a boon. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, it takes more energy to extract the petroleum than the energy value contained within it. Get it? And even if an efficient method was found, such reserves would be very expensive to extract. Hence, high-priced petroleum, much more so than today. One can not "pump" oil shale, despite your assertion to the contrary. And, as I mentioned, Canada has found a way to do it efficiently and economically - all it takes is someone to spend the time, money, and energy to figure problems out. Apparently America and American oil companies would rather take the easy way out and go use up someone else's liquid oil assets first before investing money to do hard research into how to extract the oil we already have.
Mr. Gold's ruminations about bacteria in subsurface formations is hardly ground-breaking, so to speak. Geologists have known about chemo- petro- and olio- trophs for decades. The latter type, as the name implies, exist in oil reserves, "eating" the hydrocarbons rather than producing them. And even if the proposed oil-producing mechanism did exist, would it be sufficient to maintain the overwhelming extraction rate? Read the book, you can probably get a few pages of it off of Amazon.com. The magazine article doesn't go in depth on everything.
Salon.com Never read Gold there, I read about him in Wired and did some research on him to find out who he was - apparently, you didn't read the Wired Magazine article online. He's been in any "hard" science magazine you can think of - go research who he is. He was only in Wired to talk a little bit about his ideas, since Wired is a popular magazine, its an obvious choice to talk., where you read of Mr. Gold, is interesting, but is an unlikely source for reputable, hard science. Unfortunately, we all soon will feel the deep pinch of decreasing hydrocarbon reserves. Because we did not pursue alternative fuels after the stunning wake-up calls in the early 1970's, the party is almost over now. Mr. Gold will soon be nursing a nasty hang-over.
Originally posted by Aeon10101110
How can you possibly put all of your faith in the theories of any single individual? Certainly, as previously asserted, Mr. Gold may be a gifted individual. But can his mind completely envelope the findings of a century-and-a-half of geological exploration, enough to entirely contradict the work of many thousands? You are merely deifying him, why should I take part in your worhip? And if he is correct about hydrocarbon reserves being constantly replenished, why isn't that indicated in the data? Read the book - I can't remember everything off the top of my head, but he does present all the data you request, get it at a library, or buy it, its not too expensive. Petroleum doesn't just show everywhere in strata; cap rock such as a salt dome must be present to prevent upward migration of the oil. Therefore, all this "replenishment" must show up in such traps, which is simply untrue! Besides, even if there were the cited mechanism, could it possibly match the extraction rates? Worldwide oil production peaked in 2000 and many individual nations' production reached maximum many years prior to that. I'm curious though, do you even know the composition of crude oil? It's consistency, of course, is predicated by the source material.
As to my initial misquote of your source e-zine, please note my "erratum" posted immediately afterwards, and of course, prior to your landbasting.
Originally posted by FieryIce1
This is really very informative but what I don’t understand is the push for oil as a reason since it was stated by three others that the process that forms oil deposits has been discovered making oil renewable.
Seems some Russian scientist discovered what really causes the formation of oil in our earth. Also that far larger oil deposits have now been discovered in other parts of the world. When we do switch to a different source for energy from oil those "old families" won't be effected. Oil would seem to be the reason for being in Iraq but the common knowledge is that oil is so limited and that is not the true case.
I have heard that they have found a way to make oil renewable, maybe this is what the Russians have come up with.
The US has vast quantities of something called Oil Shale - a claylike rock soacked through with fossil fuel.
The Canadians stuck with it and have perfected the process of extracting oil from something similar to the shale called Oil Sand.
These reasons also moot the oil for war proposition.
Why keep looking at oil as the main reason?
[Edited on 21-3-2004 by FieryIce1]
Originally posted by Catfish
BECAUSE IRAQ WOULDNT GIVE BUSH HIS OIL, SPOILED LIL' GORGEY PORGIE THREW A FIT AND GOT HIS FREINDS TO GO BEAT EM UP FOR HIS OIL.
I geuss there WAS some good in ridding them of Saddam.
But , from what I understand, the US left iraq in ruins.
on the news, a whole lot of people were left with no electrcity and water, because It seems the US trashed the place.