digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Oil Does Not Come From Dead Dinosaurs

worldnetdaily.com — A new book challenges the theory that oil comes from dinosaurs. Oil is actually quite plentiful.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • TetrisKid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The problem, Smith says, is not oil scarcity, but rather, a refining crisis."

    Duh... sadly hardly anybody understands this.
  • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, of course petroleum doesn't come from dinosaurs. There weren't enough of them.

    It comes almost entirely from vegetation and plankton. What a moron.
  • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Absolutely no statistics on that page to back up his claim. If it's true, then great, but at least provide a few elementary statistics to prove it!
  • cptmorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no, fossil fuels do.
  • Tazwolff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oil is abiotic.
  • pubbie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow, Worldnetdaily... yeah, im not even gonna waste my time on that site. They aren't exactly credible. I remember a "Saddams WMDs found"- type headline series.
  • DeVryGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess the question is why can't/don't we build new refineries?
  • pubbie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Thought I'd share another one of these articles to show what sort of people wnd are: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47150

    or how about this link they have as "news"
    http://www.acluvsamerica.com/main/default.aspx?referral=wndc
    The ACLU's true agenda for America
    Compelling new book removes veil on law group's communist roots
    --Alliance Defense Fund

    sorta smells right-wing to me, but I'm not sure (Im not American).
  • WillieLove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The scientific evidence cited in "Black Gold Stranglehold" suggests that oil is constantly being produced by the earth, far below the earth's surface, and that it is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation."

    Wow, it's amazing that we don't all fly off into outer space with all that centrifugal force that brings the oil up.

    Everybody wants to believe this guy, of course. I myself am investing in biodiesel instead.

    Relevant Google Fight:
    http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22peak+oil%22&word2=%22abiotic+oil%22

    Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?
    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml
    • oicuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0One of the co-authors named Jack Kenney was arrested in Carmel California for double-murder. He shot and killed his two neighbors over a property dispute.
  • kingleer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Um... Worldnetdaily is NOT a news site.
  • meangene, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Boochie
  • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Oil is abiotic."

    Really? Perhaps you could explain the phenomenon of the "rainbow sheen" that is found on both petroleum and decayed plant matter. There's nothing else like it in the rest of geology. It's odd, isn't it, that a purely "abiotic" mix of hydrocarbons shares a property only ever found in decayed plant matter, don't you think?
  • foohookups311, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thank you finally someone comes out with a book explaining why we are getting screwed with oil. Hopefully people will finally listen and understand.

    We don't build refineries because of a number of reasons. Refineries have a huge PR issue (nobody wants a refinery in their backyard). Also the left wing of politics hates oil production because they believe it contributes to global warming. The right wing doesnt want to increase refining oil because they can make increased profits off these scare tatics.

    What happens when both political parties don't want you to have cheap oil?? You get screwed. royally
  • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"sorta smells right-wing to me, but I'm not sure (Im not American)."

    They are __quite__ conservative and of a rather nutty variety. You'll also find lots of end-times and "giants under the Earth" material there, as well.
  • FunHeadlines, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Worldnetdaily is kinda like a National Enquirer for the right-wing crowd. They provide the stories the right wing really wishes were news. So you need WMDs to be found? They'll announce they have been found. Don't want to encourage oil conservation? No problem, they'll write a story saying that oil is plentiful!
  • HeavyDownpour, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Hello?
    WingNut Daily?

    What are you, new?
  • chesterton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0MMMM.... can you smell that? That's the smell of progress, my boy.
  • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For those of you whining about "needs details" and calling this guy a moron a quick google search on "abiotic oil" yiels this...http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html

    It's quite possible that what you know about "fossil fuels" is WRONG, and you should at least hold your mind open until it's proven one way or the other.

    I don't pretend to have the answer either way, but some *very* smart people, dating all the way back to the 50's, believe in Abiotic Oil Formation.

    Read the link I provided and make up your own mind.
  • gabeN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"...it's actually quite plentiful..."

    ...tell that to OPEC...
  • simplisticton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0God, it's sad to live in a world where this could possibly be considered "science".
  • polvo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's a sadder wolrd when crap like this is DUGG.
  • paulhruby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Simple reason why we don't build more refineries....
    if you have enough refineries then you can't push the price of gas to$3.25 and increase your profits 80%....
    Seems crystal clear to me...It makes it easier for them to stick the knife in...
  • phenix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is insane. It's amazing to me how people will believe anything if it helps them assuage their fears. Why was this even dugg?
  • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I don't pretend to have the answer either way, but some *very* smart people, dating all the way back to the 50's, believe in Abiotic Oil Formation."

    One wonders why oil companies, who stand to gain the most from the notion of abiotic oil, were it true, don't believe that it exists. One wonders why these highly self-interested specialists believe petroleum comes from ancient plant material. They must be stupid to have made preparations for the end of peak oil.
  • adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well little timmy, when a bunch of dead plants and the earth love eachother the start a very specail process....
  • jamms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2right wing propaganda. no digg.
  • nativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How the hell did this get on the front page????
  • UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0political *****, not even close to tech!
  • FuzzyBunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm not even going to dignify this story with a read. It is well established that oil is the byproduct of decayed biological matter (note to idiots, while this includes dinosaurs it is not exclusive to them).
  • AtomicTheory, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is idiotic.

    WHY are people digging this? Do people just go through the main page digging titles that look interesting, without even reading the thread? If thats the case, maybe I could get on diggnation by naming my article "Xbox 360 in stores early, AND comes bundled with Halo 3, all for $99"
  • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The headline is correct, oil does not come from dead dinosaurs. It comes from prehistoric vegetation, mainly. The amount of actual dino in the oil is probably minimal at best, because although they were big beasts, there was a hell of a lot more biomass in the form of plants.

    The idea of abiotic processes producing oil is nonsense. The amount of oil is limited. The fact is that oil companies are having a damned hard time finding new oil sources nowadays, and the oil supply will only continue to decrease from here out. Failure to recognize this fact leads to failure to invest in alternative energy sources, which will be catastophic in the long run.
  • gaspero1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0...and Newton's theory of gravity is being challenged by the "intelligent falling" theory.
  • Kneo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not just bad science, how about NO science.

    The bedrock of their claims is that "oil reserves are at historically high levels", a claim that is known to be false. Opec countries have been inflating their 'proven reserve' numbers for decades in order to raise the amount of oil they are allowed to export, and to assure their customers that supplies remain high and there is no need to conserve. Conservation is bad news for an oil exporting country. Reserve shortages are to the oil industry what mad cow is to the beef industry.
  • socket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I believe that oil is indeed abiotic. This is to quell any fear I have over a "peak oil" scenario. It's if you know anything about oil exploration then you need to consider this theory.

    The best oil exploration companies know sometimes you strike black gold in places it wouldn't make sense to look if you use standard biotic oil theory to figure out where look.

    As far ass the above dumb asses "rainbow sheen" argument that's 100% not true. The "rainbow sheen" is frequently reproduced with non-organic and non-biological material very frequently. So you can throw that little trinket of ***** down the commode.

    The one not so happy part of this and hard to explain issue is about the centrifugal force bringing it to the surface. I doubt that's a reasonable explanation for how abiotic oil would reach the upper crust of the earth. But this doesn't necessarily discount that another mechanism of physics or geological phenomenon could responsible for accomplishing this action.

    Peak oil has not been proven yet. It's also a great way for oil companies to scare the public too. The bottom line here is we just don't have enough data or evidence to say any of this crap is true. But when you just blindly write off abiotic oil theory as "right wing" wishful thinking you're not doing anyone favors. Butch up people.
  • socket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Er, isn't to quell. :)
  • FrostyTheDMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If oil came from only one or two sources (i.e. - decaying vegitation/animal matter) then why are oil wells that have long been "tapped out" suddenly running at full capacity again? The fact is that oil exists unto itself... and will continue to do so. That being said- build me a hydrogen car that can get up to 80+ miles and hour & haul my fishing boat up north (I live in MN, it's a must) then I will be first in line to buy one. Global Warming... limited Oil is the merely the leftist extreme view, just like this is the rights extreme view. The fact is, if we can do something w/o oil... why not do it. All you engineers out there, GET TO WORK ya lazy bastards. ;P

    [FROSTY]
  • djork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I certainly would not get my news from WorldNet Daily, nor Coast to Coast AM, but the theory of abiogenic petroleum DOES hold water. It's known as Russian-Ukrianian petroleum theory, and Russia has successfully been drilling oil fields in locations and at depths that are completly impossible to achieve based on the biogenic theory. Our western idea of "fossil fuels" is a relic of the 18th century. Seriously, science HAS been moving forward in this area, but the West has chosen to ignore it.

    Here are some credible resources:
    http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html
  • jwe21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0STFW.. there are plenty of articles in reputable journals out there on this topic.
    http://www.gasresources.net/toc_articles.htm
  • whitesanjuro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin -- for all the people who think this is just some kind of junk science/political grab for attention, you should note that the idea of abiogenic petroleum has existed for over a hundred years in russia and was propagated by the man who created the modern periodic table.
  • dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"'The scientific evidence cited in "Black Gold Stranglehold" suggests that oil is constantly being produced by the earth, far below the earth's surface, and that it is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation.'

    Wow, it's amazing that we don't all fly off into outer space with all that centrifugal force that brings the oil up."

    I'd just like to state that their is no such thing as "centrifugal" force and that people often confuse this fake force with what is centripital force. Whatever, I like my physics.
  • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The "rainbow sheen" is frequently reproduced with non-organic and non-biological material very frequently. So you can throw that little trinket of ***** down the commode."

    Really? Apparently my geology professors were wrong. Please show me a citation and I promise to share it with them.
  • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"...you should note that the idea of abiogenic petroleum has existed for over a hundred years in russia and was propagated by the man who created the modern periodic table."

    Both of these arguments are fallacious. Newton believed in phrenology, and he was a genius, but that doesn't mean everything he believed was credible. Likewise, lots of wrong notions have existed for long periods of time with surprising durability, like astrology, but it doesn't mean they're correct.
  • SuperFarStucker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0centrifugal forces are real they are just another name for the non tangential acceleration of an object. Technically its not a 'real' force in the sense it has no 'actor' but I think these people are slightly beyond phys 101.

    That being said, the critics who appear to be more reasonable suggest that it is conflict with other theories about carbon cycles etc. and that if oil was truly produced at such a rate we'd literally have drowned in it. The best way to prove such theories false however, since we can't really see deep into the earth's mantle, is to wait a few years :) Increased production over the next couple of decades would seem to support the theory but wouldn't validate it much, as where even a levelling of production would almost certainly falsify it. Also note, by his theory, you should be able to go and dig a hole anywhere and get some oil. He spent his own money trying just that and the only oil he got (80 barrels) was from the drilling machine leaking it back into the earth.
  • mypape, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0O&A had Joe Rogan on and he was talking about this book. Stop stealing from O&A hoo hoo
  • socket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Drahknon I can assure you I have more experience in this then you. It's cute when stupid college kids buy every word their professors tell them. I have three words for you kiddo... HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER.
  • mianus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0didn't you get the feeling you were wating fox news?
  • aMillionAndNine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very questionable. It seems to be based on a lot of broad assumptions such as "oil reserves are at historically high levels" that are subject to political, economic, and philosophical misrepresentations. I am talking mainly about the information presented in the article and by the author (not the entire theory) as I do not have a deep technical understanding of the issues involved. The whole thing seems pretty far fetched and probably self serving.
  • 70ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I didn't believe at first, but if you think about it. Why is there oil deep below the ocean?
  • swankboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You only believe oil comes from dinosaurs and there's a finite amount because that's what people thought a half century or more ago. The only reason that line of thinking is still perpetuated is because greenies don't want everyone knowing we're not going to "run out of oil". If you think about for ten minutes it's an idiotic assumption.

    Those same people also told you that we'd be destroyed by nuclear war by now.

    Those same people told you that we'd be living like Waterworld by now because of global warming.

    Those same people told you you'd be dead from skin cancer because the ozone layer would be gone by now.

    Those same people told you tens of thousands would be dead in New Orleans.

    Those same people today are telling you you'll die of bird flu "as soon as it mutates".

    For a site that I would think would be filled with intelligent people you sure lap up whatever's in front of you.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.