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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommaso who wrote (113718)	11/18/2008 3:50:06 PM
From: JimisJim	11 Recommendations Respond to of 206151

Oh? No, I understand the process quite well... have been working in oil patch for over 20 years and I know the conventional wisdom quite well (i.e., that oil is a fossil fuel) and I also understand the abiotic oil theory quite well. I simply posted that it doesn't matter how oil is made... it makes no difference at present whether it is a finite resource or infinite. The constraint in oilpatch is more about the inability to find new fields and produce as much of the oil in them as possible at a faster rate than we consume it. Makes no difference how much oil there is if we can't find and produce it as fast as we consume it. As for your post: not too complicated plugging a toaster into a meadow muffin -- but the toaster would work better if you gathered all of the methane from a lot of meadow muffins and used it to generate some AC power and then plugged the toaster into that. But what does plugging toasters into cow crap have to do with the inability to find and produce oil as fast as we use it up -- regardless of whether oil is a fossil fuel or abiotic in origin? Same end result. Assume that oil is abiotic. How long does it take to be created and rise far enough so that we can find it and use it? Apparently, it takes a lot longer to do that than it does to use up what we can recover. So again, I ask: what was your point? Jim