k wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] It does imply that we have a lot more oil
] ] then we think we do, but how much is totally unclear, as the
]
] ] actual theory is unproven. In order to measure the size of
] ] something you must first establish that it exists.
]
] [ This is the crux of it. Even if you accept that there are
] billions of barrels of oil somewhere underneath the levels we
] know about, it's going to take a serious capital investment to
] find, assess, and develop those resources. I think it's a
] good idea to spend some dollars investigating the theory,
] especially if it leads to mechanisms that allow you to
] identify existing fields that are likely to refill themselves
] at some point soon (i.e. from a bigger pocket underneath it).
]
] In the meantime, as Decius says, the resource is still
] limited on timescales we care about. It's not effectively
] renewable, so yes, we could put off the impending lack of oil,
] maybe for a hundred years or more, so lets look into it, but I
] think it's still imperative to spend the majority of our
] resources in this area on finding and building an energy
] infrastructure that's actually renewable.

It's an interesting article if only from the scientific standpoint (although if true, I can imagine future generations chuckling at our belief that oil came from trees and dinosaurs!).

I agree with what you are both saying here, though as I read it the author was suggesting that a few oil wells (such as the one he uses as an example) might refill automatically from deeper levels thus extending their productive lifespan.

But again, even if this were so, and there's no reason to get too excited about it just yet - imagine the environmental consquences of a massive increase in "fossil" fuel availability. Which is worse - none at all, or too much?

RE: WorldNetDaily: Sustainable oil?