Revolutionary discovery means world may not run out of crude

I'm sure they could flip a switch and go from Saudi-crude to bio-fuels, or whatever they want. It's politics. If they wanted food prices to go up, they'd switch to bio-fuels, and starve the third-world. That would be cruel... -er than:

If crude-oil is created out of a few chemicals, that would only starve the Arabs. I suppose that is the most humane. That's all we need is a bunch of pissed-off Arabs who go broke. Can you say:

Anarchy in the Middle-East?

starting. . . I don't know, about 2012?

. . . then "cap & trade" kicks in, and America goes broke. . . but at least gas prices will be cheap.

Originally posted by Deran
Did anybody actually read the article?

They're not saying that they found a way to make oil. They only found out that the process in which oil is created is faster and simpler than we thought. This in turn means that the oil might not run out, because it's continuously produced by the earth.

They're also saying that they can now predict where to find oil because they know how and where it's created.

Finally! one sane person who read this article right! - thanks mate!

Whats the matter with you all here? rambling about the nazi synthetic-oil program & production and other non related speculations that you're connecting this article with?

Did any of you who posted here actually read the article?

Or is it me who's having the reading comprehension problems?

A team of scientists based at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden have made a "revolutionary" discovery about how hydrocarbon is formed, learning that animal and plant fossils are not necessary to form crude oil.

The discovery, the scientists say, means that the world will never run out of crude oil. Currently, theory states that crude oil is formed very slowly - over millions of years - from the remains of dead plants and animals. Buried under rock, over time the pressure and temperature of natural earth processes results in the creation of crude oil. But that theory is now old news, as the scientists, led by Vladimir Kutcherov, say they have proven that fossilized plants and animals are not needed to create hydrocarbons.

“Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,”

Kutcherov has said that his next step is to conduct experiments that will help him refine his new method for finding drilling points.

The idea of endless oil might be a bane to environmentalists and high-stakes oil production fields, such as Canada's oil sands, but most of the world's population will thrill to the idea that they will not have to give up their beloved automobiles. Not only will it be a much simpler matter to find and extract petroleum fuels, but, as Kutcherov's theories become reality, prices for natural gas and gasoline products should decrease. Kutcherov said the world is reliant on crude oil and natural gas, which makes up 61% of fuels currently used.

Kutcherov had recently proven that hydrocarbons can be created out of water, calcium carbonate and iron, and this means that crude oil is a sustainable, renewable resource, according to reports. However, this discovery does not mean that emissions from the combustion of hydrocarbons do not create climate change.

Kutcherov is a professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden.

www.digitaljournal.com...


[edit on 15-9-2009 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by trueperspective


You know, that is what I have been saying about that new fangled horseless carriage thingy. If that prevails, all the stables, horseshoers, and tack manufacturers will be out of business. And all those poor people who work for them will not be able to feed their families. So lets just make it illegal to drive one of those thingys on a public road, and anyway else we can thing of to stop it.

Eventually, world wars will break out due to oil.

100 years later, world wars will break out due to water

Originally posted by bettermakings
That's all we need is a bunch of pissed-off Arabs who go broke. Can you say:

Anarchy in the Middle-East?

starting. . . I don't know, about 2012?

Correction, more like 1000 BC! When has there ever been peace in the mid-east? Give them money, and they buy bigger guns. And breed more terrorists who learn to follow the terrorist religion. They are already pissed-off, and their religion tells them to take over the world, and force it into their religion. They make an exception if you are willing to pay their 'ransom', an annual tax for being non-Muslim. And, of course, your money is used to further wage war against your kind. If you value your money more than your religion, you will suddenly see the wisdom of worshipping a moon god. And you are worthless anyways, valueing your money more than truth.

reply to post by Chevalerous
And concerning 'climate change', you, being an ATSer, already know that it is not man made, but from solar weather. So the fella you quote has at least that part distorted.

Originally posted by ziggy1706
This is not necessarliy new news. I like to read over on bobistheoilguy.com, oil engineers forum, but open to the public as well. About 2 years ago, thier was a thread, about a new theory, that oils was Abiotic...meaning its kinda like, earth blood, rather than made of the land before time. So, when humans extract oil form a well, thiers a good chance the oil will replace itself in that well, over millions of years.

In many cases it has already been proven to be true.
Oil wells that have been capped off for some time have once again produced oil.

Of course in order to make profits, they would like you to believe that we are running out of oil, but this is crap.

Originally posted by LeTan
I think they'll hush it up or alternate the story so that oil companies don't lose money. They said no to solar power, they said no geothermal, they said no to at least 60 other renewable sources of energy. This won't be any different.

There's a major solar project on the table for Australia, talk of the Germans setting up a massive solar plant in north Africa.
There is also a major geothermal project underway already in Australia.

Wind turbines are popping up everywhere.

But I do agree, the big oil lobbies will get to work if this a serious threat to their profit margins.

Renewable energy is very expensive. That's why it's being allowed. Because it can not be rolled out in a large enough way to relieve dependence on oil.

But they are fighting a loosing battle anyway. And they know it, that's why we are paying through the nose at the pump still.
The price of oil per barrel reached $150-160. Prices at the pump reached $1.50 in Australia. Today they are around $1.30/40. With "cheap" fuel considered at $1.15/20. The current price of oil per barrel is around $60.
Over a 50% drop from it's peak. Yet at the pump, prices have only receded slightly and do not reflect the current price per barrel.
In other words, prices at the pump are kept high to maximize profits.

Israel and I think Denmark are already rolling out hundreds of thousands of charging stations for electric hybrid vehicles. There is now talk of doing the same across the east coast of Australia, which just happens to have the most populated cities and regions in Australia.

Originally posted by ashnomadonte

Revolutionary discovery means world may not run out of crude

www.digitaljournal.com

A team of scientists based at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden have made a "revolutionary" discovery about how hydrocarbon is formed, learning that animal and plant fossils are not necessary to form crude oil.
The discovery, the scientists say, means that the world will never run out of crude oil. Currently, theory states that crude oil is formed very slowly - over millions of years - from the remains of dead plants and animals. Buried under rock, over time the pressure and temperature of natural earth processes results in the creation of crude oil. But that theory is now old ne

(visit the link for the full news article)

This isn't revolutionary. The Russian scientists new that oil was replaced in the late 50s/early 60s. Abiotic theory....look it up.

Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

And concerning 'climate change', you, being an ATSer, already know that it is not man made, but from solar weather. So the fella you quote has at least that part distorted.

What are you talking about mate?

Do you refer to these words in the article?

However, this discovery does not mean that emissions from the combustion of hydrocarbons do not create climate change.

well that is not a quote from Vladimir Kutcherov - that is the personal words and the opinion of the author of the article: Stephanie Dearing

So please leave that poor fella out of this!


[edit on 15-9-2009 by Chevalerous]

This is nothing new!!! Coal to Oil tech is alive and well today but both environmentalist & Big oil fight against it.

www.moneyweek.com...

Today there are three CTL plants in what is now democratic South Africa, converting coal into 150,000 barrels a day (equal to the output of a medium-sized oilfield). In addition to petrol, diesel and avgas, the process produces a wide range of by-products such as petrochemicals, waxes, feedstocks for plastics manufacture, and fuel gas.

While it’s forecast that the world will run short of conventional oil within a century, with most of the remaining large deposits in politically unstable regions, there is little recognition that coal is an abundant substitute. Enough for more than a thousand years.

The US has the world’s largest coal deposits, with 268 billion tons of recoverable reserves. HSBC says that at a standard conversion rate of two barrels of synthetic fuels from one ton of coal, those reserves are equivalent to the 20 times the nation’s current crude oil reserves.

At capital costs of $700 million for capacity of 10,000 barrels/day and a 30-year life, operating costs of $15/barrel and current coal costs, breakeven for a coal-to-liquids plant in the US would be in the range $39-44 a barrel, assuming no tax incentives.

However, the new Highway Act provides a subsidy of $21 a barrel for commercial-scale CTL projects. Taking that into account, with oil at $50 a barrel (that is, well below current prices around $70), the internal rate of return on such a project would be in the mouth-watering range 22-25 per cent.

It would also be environmentally friendly, as the technology converts dirty coal into “ultra-clean” synthetic diesel and jet fuel that can be used in current engines without adaptation. And “the fuels are easily transportable and marketable, as they are compatible with existing petro-fuel distribution infrastructure” (unlike ethanol-blended petrol, bio-diesel and more radical alternative fuels).

[edit on 15-9-2009 by inregardstoo]

This is the oil company's attempt on a stranglehold of the world's money.
they know that their time is coming to an end and they are trying to keep a hold on as much profits as long as they can.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by inregardstoo]

reply to post by PenandSword


You're absolutely correct! Which means that long before most ATS'ers ever entered school, the whole "fossil fuels" theory had been discredited and should have been shelved. But all of us, including those working in the gas and oil industry, grew up under the misconception that oil was a rare and precious commodity with a definite bottom to the barrel. That allowed other fuel sources to be termed "renewable" and left many of us hanging between the horns of a false dilemma, polluting both our minds and our conversations with disinformation that rendered our thoughts both harmless and meaningless. When the first phony "oil crisis" hit in the early 1970s, we were set up like a bowling pin and fell into lines at gas stations when told to do so.

When disinformation gatekeeper Mike Rupert gave his speech to the Commonwealth Club about peak oil, it proved that the upper crust of American society was just as dimly ignorant of the real world as its trailer park trash (no insult intended, those who live in mobile home parks). Liberal gatekeeper Michael Moore even licked up the sloppy seconds with his ode to the end of oil in one of his books. And all this worry, economic strife, and, eventually, oil-war deaths on both sides were based on a common misconception fomented not only in public schools and colleges, but in private schools and ivy league universities, too.

Was it just because the Russkies, who we of course should never ever trust, came up with the real science behind crude oil creation that the information was suppressed? Or was it because the denizens of the elite who control American industry, education, and politics had a plan to carry out certain criminal acts--a conspiracy, one might even say? Who decided that this little bit of truth was too inconvenient to allow to be told?

Originally posted by kozmo
I don't want to derail the thread, but do want to add my 2 cents. As most are already aware, this is old news as the technology has existed for over half a century. This is only news to the masses as the oil companies have known this forever.

What is also largely unknown by the masses are the technological advances that make 100+ MPG cars possible. There have been so many fuels saving technologies invented, purchased by big oil and supressed that it would make your head spin.

We have been enslaved by corporate greed since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The only way to once again become truly free and share in the vast resources the Earth has to offer and benefit from the technologies of intelligent people is to give rise to a new revolution. Let it go down in histroy as the "FREEDOM REVOLUTION"!!!

Good point! I remember that in answer to the earlier phony oil crisis it was not unusual for "economy" cars to get 40-60 mpg. Now I hear commercials on the radio for cars and truck that get an amazingly great 20-30 mpg on the highway. What a joke! Too bad it's on us...

reply to post by ashnomadonte

Yeah we even know how to grow oil from algae.

100,000 gallons per acre per year in the desert

10% of the desert in the state of new mexico could do all the transport
fuel needs for all of the US.

The Sahara could do the whole earth.

My preference would be to get away from oil though.

Originally posted by rickyrrr

Even if it took 10 years to happen I believe we would see major starvation and war (to get the last "drops" of oil) though I think without an event like that or the threat of it, people are not going to bother changing their ways, so some form of catastrophe is almost inevitable.
Many alternative energy technologies still depend on oil for their manufacture, etc. So we better use the oil we have to get them up and running before we are forced to use alternative energy to produce our own alternative energy equipment, cause that will be a very slow and painful process.

-rrr

We already have starvation & war, but you're right about needing a catastrophe to get the alternative fuel issue jump-started. It takes a catastrophe to get America to look at any real issue & it takes a miracle to keep us interested...

I think there are many alternative fuel & energy technologies out there that we don't even know about. Also, if we knew we were going to run out at a certain point, the 'money makers' would get this technology running in record time.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by corusso]

[edit on 16-9-2009 by corusso]

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
reply to post by ashnomadonte

 

Yeah we even know how to grow oil from algae.

100,000 gallons per acre per year in the desert

10% of the desert in the state of new mexico could do all the transport
fuel needs for all of the US.

The Sahara could do the whole earth.

My preference would be to get away from oil though.

my question to you is, if we can do this and make money from it THAN WHY THE HECK ARE WE NOT DOING THIS!?!? It would create jobs and god forbid stimulate the economy. All thoe I am told that the ressission is over!


Thank all of you for contributing to this thread and I am sorry I was away for so long.

reply to post by ashnomadonte


Great find Ash, I think if People stand up supporting the numerous amounts of alternative discoveries, then the PTB won't be able to sweep them all under the rug.

I find it funny one day the Bakkan Range when discovered made the USA the richest Hydrocarbon country in the World one day, and just little while further down the road, the say the extensive testing was wrong.................... I guess it gets real "stinky" around big govt., and big corps....

S&F