I don't think that will win him any posthumous Nobel prize, though. Maybe we can burn a lump of coal in his honor.

Methane is CH4. A carbon atom with 4 hydrogens attached. So it exists in space. Alert the media.

Wake up folks, peak oil is lie!

You need to read the finding of Tom Gold, as most people aren't even aware of the true source of oil. When you get bored of kidding yourselves, you'll realise you've all been dupped.

And as for oil prices rising, supplies dwindling... it's due to exisiting (shallower) reserves being used up which also CONVENIENTLY makes a fortune for the oil companies/producers as the price is inflated to extreme levels. Interestingly peak oil theories also help convince the masses of oil shortages and help drive up the price... no suprise then that oil companies aren't exploring elsewhere or trying to hide from the peak oil stories.

You lot are going to feel very used when plentiful oil is still around in 50years time. Meanwhile if you can refute Tom Golds theories I'd like to hear it!

And his theory is better than the other data exacly how?




Would you feel better if we called it "Cheap Oil" or "Cheap energy" is the peak to be afraid of?
Deeper wells == more expensive.

Say Tom Gold is right.....now how does that effect the increasing CO2 levels and global warming?

I look forward to your reply explaining how Tom's theory makes energy cheap and how CO2 levels can be controlled with Mr. Gold's theory.

Because be it peak oil/cheap energy/whatever - its all about a quality of life here on earth and making sure the next generations have a quality of life.

Well I don't know who Tom Gold is but when I hear you say "most people aren't even aware of the true source of oil" I'm guessing it has something to do with the abiotic non-debate which has been covered ad nauseum. I might be wrong though and he has some other theory.

http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000019.html

I don't know who Tom Gold is either, but as to ET living underground - uh, have you heard of Colonel Bo Gritz? Phil Schneider? Ralph Parsons tunneling company? S4?

Thomas Gold was a famous scientist who developed many theories covering everything from steady-state theory to deep layers of dust existing on the moon. Some of his theories were right, while some were completey erroneous. Here's the book covering his abiotic theory of oil creation. Every peak oil naysayer points to Thomas Gold's theory as proof that peak oil is a scam.

Question: If at least one of Thomas Gold's theories was proven incorrect then can it not be postulated that his abiotic theory may also be incorrect?

This is the weakeast argument that can be used to refute the abiotic oil theory, but it doesn't cover all the bases. Not even close. So...

Let's say that Thomas Gold's theory IS indeed correct. Then, we should logically and literally be awash in oil, correct? Here's something to consider and something else...

But, you're still not convinced you say? Alright. I accept that. So, let's consider some of what you wrote in your post:


If crude oil prices rise to a level that consumers simply cannot afford to buy in abundance, then the price will eventually decrease to a lower and more affordable level due to the economics of supply and demand. While the oil companies may make a lot of money during this time, everyone else who purchases their product won't be. This includes car companies, agri-businesses, and practically every industry that relies on crude oil as either a feedstock or energy source. If you can prove to me why oil-dependant companies would want their businesses to suffer to such an extent that they'd risk becoming extinct, then you've done something remarkable: you will have proved that ALL oil-dependent companies want higher oil prices so they can suffer a possible financial meltdown.

I would argue that this is probably not the case. This isn't about oil companies making more money...

"The ballad of Tom Gold"

I am new but i just wanted to know how tom gold theory works? deeper what reserves?

The *theory* is that oil is a renewable resource welling up from deep within the earths crust.

This may very well be true. If it is true then the biggest problem is that oil stocks globally are not being renewed fast enough for human consumption case in point, US oil production peaked in the early 1970's.

Unless the theory excludes US oil fields and relates specifically to MIddle East oil fields I'd pop a search or two into google and see if you can come up with any interesting links.

Although enough problems with this theory have already been pointed out to discredit it, I would add another. It depends on a major conspiracy on the part of oil compaines. Can anyone produce evidence of such a conspiracy?

First of all peak oil is a theory which is a quite logical theory. A theory can never be a lie. It can either be true or untrue.

Second of all why would we wish to refute a theory which has never even been proven to be true?

There is no clearly proven experiment in which his theory has practically been proven. If you can show me the paper of such an experiment then i will happily read it and accept or refute it.

I would say peak oil is a theory that has been proved true already. No one refutes that if you only consider the US-48 then peak oil theory was proved correct with the peak in 1971. Same goes for the North Sea with a peak in 2000 (99 for the UK fields and 01 for Norway's). If the theory is correct for individual regions doesn't it follow that it will be true for the whole world?

Tom Gold believes the origins of oil are abiotic. The Russians say he's got the theory wrong and that what he did come up with was plagerized from them. The Russians have been drilling under the theory that oil's origins are abiotic since at least the 1950's. Sorry, I don't have the cites, but a search for "russia and abiotic" will probably pull them up. There was one Russian paper I read (written in English), addressing the concern of peak oil. It said that peak oil is not an issue bc the world has never been properly explored using the abiotic theory of oil. So, even if they're right, the problem is no one in the west is drilling under that theory thus we still have a problem.

However, an argument I read that I tend to agree with is this, regardless of the origins of oil, whether Russian or Wester views, the problem is whatever orgins of oil the world is not producing it fast enough to match our depletion of the resource.

I hope the naysayers are right, in fact, I keep reading hoping they will provide some thorough analysis to support their conclusion that everything will be okay. Unfortunately, those making that rosy prediction are quick to point out problems with the methodology or data of the "pessimist," yet they do not do us the courtesy of producing the data or methodology they use to come up with their own rosy conclusions. I wish the optimist, like Michael Lynch, would do us the favor of showing us how he arrives at the conclusion that at some unknown date and unknown time in the future some yet unknown energy source will replace oil and we will all be happy. I wish he would give us some dates, tell us how high oil prices have to get to find this yet unknown resource, how long it will take to develop it, how much it will cost to develop it and mass produce it, who is going to pioneer it (bc it obviously won't be the oil companies), and show us what data he is relying on to come to the rosy conclusion that we have enough oil to last for how much longer?? Last, I wish that Michael Lynch in particular would be so kind as to detail what his financial interest are with Saudi Aramco (as reported by the Washingto Post or Wall Street Journal, I don't remember). I would like to think that Lynch has some credible data to support his yet unsupported rosy conclusion. I hope that he's not simply regurgitating the public position of a very important client of his, Saudi Aramco.