Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (39897)	2/11/2000 10:05:00 PM
From: Casaubon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99985

actually, the process of bioconversion to generate methanol or ethanol, which can then be catalytically converted to hydrogen, for use in fuel cells, is very attractive. Even if the time horizon is ten or twenty years, I really don't see the problem with fossil fuel limitations.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (39897)	2/11/2000 10:10:00 PM
From: John Madarasz	Respond to of 99985

Haim... ntrs.com Best Regards, John

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (39897)	2/12/2000 11:03:00 AM
From: RocketMan	Respond to of 99985

RM, all those theories are not substantiated. It has more to do with the miscalculation of oil reserves in certain oil fields. Haim, I agree that Gold's theory is not sufficiently substantiated to change the existing paradigm. That does not mean that it is incorrect, only that it needs much more evidence than the few anomalies that he has identified, and which his theory does account for. For example, his theory accounts not only for replenishment of some oil fields, but also for life around ocean vents that is independent of solar energy and photosynthesis, or other surface effects and process. The whole issue is quite simple - energy from the sun in captured in organic materia, which under certain circumstances is partly transformed in crude oil which we extract. Perhaps it is that simple. That certainly fits the traditional models for oil formation. However, the field of science is littered with simple ideas that were later found to be incomplete or incorrect. Who would have thought that we would find bacteria around deep ocean vents that oxidize methane and hydrogen with oxygen from sulfates and metal oxides to produce carbon dioxide and water? Did this life adapt from the surface, or did it evolve deep within the bowels of the earth? And if so, how deep can it thrive? Although the burden is on Gold to bring proof to the table, his paradigm is intriguing and addresses much broader issues than oil formation -- the concept of theormophilic bacteria living deep within the earth, with possibly a larger biomass than exists on the surface, changes the traditional notions of the origins of life on earth, and the possibility of life on planets such as Mars that appear to be dead on the surface. Is he right? I don't know, but Gold is no crackpot. He is a Professor Emeritus at Cornell, and a member of both the NAS and the Royal Society. The only truth to more reserves of oil being "made" ... Historically, scientific progress has been fairly harsh on "only truths..." The only problem is that producing syntetic oil is costly and present oil reserves mother nature made it for us over many millions of years only that humans will consume it an mere 150 years or thereabout. Whether that is ultimately correct or not, I would agree that from a practical sense, exploitation of alternative energy sources -- including nuclear -- and conservation efforts are paramount to getting us over the hump of oil reserve depletion, regardless of whether that is a temporary or permanent hump. Good investing.