From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Dec 19 2001 - 14:23:57 MST
On Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:03 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey@datamann.com
wrote:
>> I've heard this theory before, but I thought it was discredited when
no
>> oil was found in places like Sweden. Am I wrong? Any recent
[online]
>> references on this?
>
> No references, but the amount of oil in the North Sea should be
> indicative. The lack in Sweden could simply be a phenomenon of the
> particular rock layers/thickness/fault structure. The science is
really
> too new and unexplored for this theory to generate a lot of supporting
> evidence yet.
I think Anders answered this. I first heard of the notion about a
decade ago. I think, by now, it would have been tested -- yeah not at
the level of testing GTR or QED -- but enough to see if there's anything
to it.
> Even so, if oil is not being produced at depth all around the world,
it
> most certainly will tend to percolate from deeper reserves to more
> shallow reserves over time, such that oil that is currently
unreachable
> eventually works its way up to fill previously evacuated salt domes.
But this is entirely different from the model where there's constant
production -- the one where oil is basically a renewable resource.
Now, this does not mean I'm embracing the oil-is-going-to-run-out-soon
line. Obviously, not -- else I wouldn't have isolated part of your post
that initially got my attention. But let's not accept any theory in the
place of a wrong one. It seems to me, the conventional model of the
production of fossil fuels -- as produced from certain kinds sedimentary
deposits of organics -- remains the best supported. Please, anyone here
who is a geologist might inform us if it is otherwise.
Later!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:40 MST