The New Oil Paradigm No One Is Talking About

As the dust settles on the implosion of oil prices, investors are left scratching their heads. What about declining worldwide production in existing fields? Those millions of Asian consumers within reach of an affording that first car? China's incredible growth? Peak Oil Theory? Gasoline at $10 a gallon?

Not so scarce after all
In addition to industry concerns that a recession could cause oil demand to decline, research suggests that supply may not be as constrained as we once thought. The influential Cambridge Energy Research Associates, for instance, recently reported that we may not reach peak oil production until 2030.

Exploration projects are finding oil in many new places, most of them offshore, in deepwater reservoirs miles below the seabed. The Brazilian oil giant Petrobras (NYSE: PBR  ) has discovered numerous fields along its coast, including the famed and massive Tupi field. Announcing the find in a speech, Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva declared, ''God is Brazilian." Petrobras CEO Sergio Gabrielli emphasized that the 5-billion-barrel Tupi was ''tiny'' in comparison to what he expects can be recovered in the larger surrounding area, the Santos Basin.

The Gulf of Mexico has its own rock stars -- literally. Chevron (NYSE: CVX  ) is close to beginning operations at the eyebrow-raisingly named Blind Faith Field and platform. BP (NYSE: BP  ) operates the Thunder Horse Field, an ultra-deepwater platform project in which ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM  ) owns a 25% stake. Thunder Horse is the world's largest floating platform, poised to produce 250,000 barrels a day.

A seismic shift in mentality
Offshore production is increasing, and the industry may soon be asked to reconsider its basic assumptions about oil. Over the past few decades, a number of industry experts and geologists have conducted research suggesting that the origin of hydrocarbons may be abiogenic, not organic. Stated simply, the abiogenic oil theory posits that oil is not formed from plants and animals compressed for millions of years in sediment rock. Instead, oil is a primordial substance created before the formation of Earth, and found deep underground.

All quiet on the western front
The abiogenic theory raises questions about both "peak oil" and the conventional wisdom that petroleum is a "fossil fuel." The theory is not widely discussed in the West, though it has proponents dating back more than a century.

Deepwater wells are teeming with abiogenic potential. As early as 1995, a New York Times article quoted Dr. K. K. Bissada, a Texaco geochemist: "I think we pump oil out much faster than oil can come in. ... But from a long-term perspective, I believe that hydrocarbons are coming in from great depths and are filling the newer reservoirs at shallower depths.'' Stop and read that again.

Replenishing oil reservoirs makes perfect sense if we think of oil as akin to magma, which comes from deep in the Earth, rather than a substance created from dead ferns compressed for millions of years. Will oil turn out to be a near-infinite resource?

No matter what you believe about the origins of hydrocarbons -- personally, I'm an abiogenic proponent -- the good news for investors is that these new deepwater wells undoubtedly hold a substantial amount of oil. As exploration efforts intensify, we're finding oil in places once thought impossible, such as 25,000 feet below the seabed.

Oil's worst month in history
Last month's spectacular collapse in oil prices, the biggest monthly drop in history, is yet another chapter in the energy-price roller coaster. Fears of a global recession, margin calls, and flight to the dollar brought crude oil down from $99 per barrel to just less than $68, and the share prices of virtually every energy company have cratered alongside it.

But despite recent shocks, powerful dynamics still indicate that oil has been oversold and will trade higher over the long term:

  • Petroleum consumption from BRIC countries and the Middle East will inevitably rise, and supply will struggle to keep up.
  • Flight to the dollar may fade, especially as the United States and other countries like China spend billions of dollars on stimulus plans.
  • Drilling costs doubled from 1999-2004, and they'll only continue to increase as onshore wells dry up and production shifts to more expensive offshore sites like the aforementioned Tupi and Thunder Horse fields.

The Foolish bottom line
Energy remains a complex but promising industry. One smart way for Fools to play these trends is to check out energy service companies. Whether we see $50 or $150 oil, someone will have to get the stuff out of the ground. According to the just-published International Energy Agency's annual report, the world will need to spend more than $26 trillion by 2030 just to keep up with a projected 1.3% annualized growth in energy demand.

In short, service companies with the equipment, resources, and knowledge to handle increasingly complicated (and lucrative) logistics will make make lots of money.

So while traders are panicking, investors should be salivating. Shares of such deepwater oil services companies as Transocean (NYSE: RIG  ) and Diamond Offshore (NYSE: DO  ) now trade at prices close to half of what they were before 2008's ''Magnificent Margin Call.''

New players are also coming onto the scene, including everyone's favorite dry bulk shipper, DryShips (Nasdaq: DRYS  ) . CEO George Economou recently purchased the Norwegian driller Ocean Rig, which operates two deepwater drillers; four more are on order, expected to be delivered in 2010. Due to an industrywide sell-off, DryShips' stock has nonetheless been cut in half in just the past month.

Our Motley Fool Hidden Gems small-cap newsletter has picked out three promising energy services companies that we believe will continue to profit from these trends. You can see what they are by clicking here for a free 30-day guest pass to Hidden Gems.

Fool contributor Matt Hoffman believes Spinal Tap was the artistic pinnacle of rock music. He owns shares of Dryships. Petrobras is an Income Investorrecommendation. The Motley Fool is investors writing for investors.

Read/Post Comments (34) | Recommend This Article (25)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 14, 2008, at 4:42 PM, maple99 wrote:

    abiogenic oil = fantasy

  • Report this Comment On November 14, 2008, at 4:55 PM, maxhoffa wrote:

    abiogensis . . . um, no.

  • Report this Comment On November 14, 2008, at 5:15 PM, TOS99 wrote:

    The scarcity of oil is related to the dollar price of oil as well as the political environment of a particular region. The only reason that Gulf of Mexico deepwater prospects are being drilled and developed is 1) the political climate allows this to happen in the Gulf and 2) oil prices currently support development costs in excess of $1 billion. The same is also true for Brazil, and the west coast of Africa. The same cannot be said for the East and West coasts of the U.S. Bottom line is that the oil industry will continue to explore for oil in areas that have economic and political stability.

    In 1964 when I started to work for a major oil company, deepwater was defined as 600 feet, now developments are occurring in 7500 feet of water and exploration is occurring in over 10,000 feet of water.

  • Report this Comment On November 14, 2008, at 5:44 PM, aramis721 wrote:

    Dear Fool, I was pleased earlier this year to see that peak oil theory had started to make an impact on your analysis. Yet now, seemingly with the price of oil (or the wind?) you shift 180 degrees and go so far as to suggest that abiogenic oil is legitimate.

    You also ignore the just-released IEA World Energy Outlook, the first field by field analysis by that agency. IEA concluded that we need to find over three new Saudi Arabias by 2015 to meet demand. This is as alarming a conclusion as you'll hear from this very conservative agency. Those with some understanding of global energy and geopolitics know that this recent report should be a clarion call to all the world's nations that we face a crisis in the next few years that will make the current economic crisis pale in comparison.

    Please read the IEA report and the recent UK Industry Task Force Report on Peak Oil, concluding that a "descent" scenario in which oil supplies quickly fail to keep up with demand is probably. And a "collapse" scenario in which oil exporting nations turn off the spigot overnight is also quite possible.

    These two reports combined should wake all thinking people to seriously start changing their ways and start pressing all elected officials to take action quickly.

  • Report this Comment On November 14, 2008, at 6:37 PM, neveryet wrote:

    Dr. K. K. Bissada, a Texaco geochemist: "I think we pump oil out much faster than oil can come in. ... But from a long-term perspective, I believe that hydrocarbons are coming in from great depths and are filling the newer reservoirs at shallower depths".

    Note that Bissada did not mention abiogenesis. Also, note that he states "from a long-term perspective...". This statement refers to geological time frame, in which "a long-term perspective" means thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years. While there may be evidence of an occasional oil reservoir that is being re-filled at a reasonable rate (say 20 years), these are by far the exception. Talk about a long-term investment!

    I won't deny that abiogenesis occurs, but the vast amount of oil has chemical structures that tie it back to organic sources. Even the super deep oils have organic sources.

    While the New York Times may have as its motto: "all the news that's fit to print", it is not a science journal.

  • Report this Comment On November 14, 2008, at 11:39 PM, ARCrossky wrote:

    I am not a scientist and have only taken a few biology and geology courses but the very word 'abiogenesis' has the same ring to it as 'spontaneous generation'. It would be interesting to read the theory in full.

  • Report this Comment On November 14, 2008, at 11:55 PM, energymaven wrote:

    Abiogenesis - interesting concept ! But how then does one explain the usual stable bio-markers present in petroleum that are typically plant-originating.

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2008, at 3:12 AM, kazantzakis wrote:

    rotflol...Are you kidding me, Matt? Are you really trying to resurrect the abiogenic debate after all these years? That concept has been clearly and undeniably trounced multiple times since it was first proposed.

    It's a good thing that there are some scientists and engineers hanging out around here to challenge such moldy old theories.

    ...eegads, man...

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2008, at 9:23 AM, PapaWhisky wrote:

    I hear the Flat Earth Society is looking for web columnists ... should I get you the link?

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2008, at 1:45 PM, theincidentalist wrote:


    This article is meant to be a starting point, and I encourage everyone to research, discuss, ask questions. I am just bringing to light the radical changes that have happened, very quietly, in western petroleum science.

    1. oil has been found below what has been termed 'basement rock'- granite- a source rock previously thought to not contain fossil material below it.

    2. the discovery of gigantic lakes of methane on saturn's moon titan

    3. at depths of 25,000 feet and lower (Transocean holds the record) below deepwater seabed, oil is being found and pumped. there have never been any fossils recovered from anywhere close to these depths.

    Again, these are just facts that would cause any common person to pause and reconsider what he thought he once about oil and it's production potential. The Fact that Brazil found a Saudi Arabia size field off their shore is a good sign that this new depth and area of drilling is just the beginning. And quietly, major industry publications have talked about this.


    The US State Dept and Carnegie Institute-

    As Fools, we have to constantly ask questions, look at the facts, and of course follow the profits. And they are increasingly in offshore drilling.

    -Matt Hoffman

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2008, at 3:28 PM, semones100 wrote:

    Matt's comments are right on the mark.

    To drill these deep locations requires two essential features.

    1 Oil companie with the financial strength to drill really deep holes like Chevron's (CVX) 25,000 plus foot deep well in several thousand fet of water.

    2.A political environment that does not exclude thes potential drill sites

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Sivananda1 wrote:

    The idea that oil is a product of abiogenetic processes is actually not a 'new' idea, but an old one that dates from the early days of oil, back before geochemistry and related scientific disciplines were brought to bear. The biological basis of oil is a NEWER, deeper understanding of oil's origins, not an OLDER, outdated one. THAT would be the abiogenic theory...

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2008, at 5:22 PM, PapaWhisky wrote:

    The fact that this article has attracted a dozen comments is in itself a disgrace (yes ... I know I've 2 of them.)

    This type of claptrap is on par with the spewings of the Discovery Institute and their ID agenda.

    Persons making investments decisions based on non-organic sources of the world's most fundamental commodity are to be pitied.

    I'm drilling an oil well in the Canadian Shield tomorrow ... anybody want in on the ground floor?

    But let me undress your comments:

    1. oil in fractured basement granites has been shown to be sourced from conventional organic sedimentary rocks

    2. Methane (and ONLY Methane) can be biogenic in origin.

    3. 25,000 ft in the GoM is still Tertiary. I've got bunions older than those sediments.

    Fools ask Questions ... Idiots subscribe to ID, grassy knolls and non-organic oil

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2008, at 8:09 PM, sevenofseven wrote:

    Whether or not this theory is bunk or not, we were supposed to have run out of oil by now, there were supposed to have been worldwide food shortages, we were supposed to have had an ice age, and now we have global warming which is going to raise the oceans several feet. So, why is this theory any more irrelevant than the ones we have now and had in the past? The problem is that when someone comes up with the next crisis, they never factor in the technology that will be invented to prevent same crisis, i.e. deepwater drilling technology, oil shale technology, hybrid crops and ever bigger farm equipment allowing for more production on less land, etc. The alarmist think that everything else stands still for years while the crisis comes upon us. That being said, we need to rid ourselves of mideast oil. Hey, whatever happened to the ozone layer?

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2008, at 8:27 AM, JeanDavid wrote:

    It seems to me that even if the abiogenetic processes are the source of petroleum (and I doubt it), that petroleum is still a finite resource. But more important, even if the reserves of petroleum were infinite (which is manifestly impossible), we should not be burning the stuff because it harms the environment to too great a degree. The air is finite even were the supply of petroleum to be infinite. And I would rather go without oil than without air.

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2008, at 10:23 AM, ViolentCapital wrote:

    who cares what theory is right, fact is that searching for oil at 25,000 foot depths is not cheap.

    the cost of a lot of offshore projects was likely made with 15-20% profit forecasts using $70 oil, 55 is operating at the margin (or at a loss) pretty much for a lot of these offshore projects.

    cheap oil is gone, those were the onshore discoveries and offshore discoveries less than 10,000 feet deep. these new projects are almost all offshore and are all over 10,000 feet deep. if you study some offshore drilling co's you will also see that the rate of failure in drilling a successful well is higher for these guys.

    so in theory - even if abiogenesis is correct, we are sourcing our oil deeper into the earth to get more access to oil. that means oil discovery costs will increase - which will do the same to the price of oil.

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2008, at 11:26 AM, DrNostrand wrote:


    Not only is this abiogenesis theory more or less nonsense, it is nonsense which its own proponents manifestly do not believe in. If you really believed in this theory, then you would be drilling deep wells in your back yard instead of relying upon geologists to search for the stuff on the outer continental shelf.

    The apparent expansion of world oil reserves has been a direct result of improvements in oil extraction technology. Further, peak oil production is not the only issue to consider. Another issue is the ratio between energy yield and energy cost for extraction. As this ratio falls toward unity, oil becomes less and less attractive as a fuel. When it falls below zero, it is incredibly stupid to continue using it as a fuel.

    The current decline in oil prices is most likely a direct result of the financial collapse and prior oil speculation. You should expect both spot and futures prices to overshoot equilibrium. This is a hysteresis process. Hysteresis shows up in lots of real world phenomena.

    Regardless, oil production is becoming more expensive in real dollar terms, not less expensive. This means that oil will increase in price until it is displaced as a fuel. Even if we had an oil replacement right now, it would still most likely take years to switch over.

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2008, at 11:29 AM, DrNostrand wrote:


    Apparently I can not edit messages once they are posted. The ratio can not fall below zero. The critical ratio is one. At that point the energy cost for extracting oil exceeds the energy yield from burning the stuff.

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2008, at 12:40 PM, theincidentalist wrote:


    Another Forbes article, published last thursday-

    As Warren Buffet says, ''Read everything you can."

    -Matt Hoffman

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Persuter wrote:

    Wow... talk about a foolish article rather than a Foolish article. Abiogenic oil? Are you guys serious?

    We're finding oil in places never thought possible because it wasn't possible to drill there before, not because oil magically appears. This is on a rhetorical level with exclaiming over the fact that your keys are always in the last place you look.

    " the discovery of gigantic lakes of methane on saturn's moon titan"

    Yet the gigantic lakes of crude oil which you have suggested magically came into being on Earth don't appear anywhere else. Interesting coincidence how crude oil only appears on the one planet that holds life, huh?

    "at depths of 25,000 feet and lower (Transocean holds the record) below deepwater seabed, oil is being found and pumped. there have never been any fossils recovered from anywhere close to these depths."

    Of course not -- it's the record ocean drill depth! How would anyone have found fossils 5 miles down when oil drillers only reached it recently? Google "deepest dinosaur fossil", you'll find that the deepest dinosaur fossil ever found was a crushed knucklebone 1.7 miles beneath the North Sea -- found in a core sample drilled by an oil company.

    Some cherry-picked quotes and your random assertions do not make for a compelling argument. Ask 100 petroleum scientists where the vast majority of crude oil on Earth comes from, and 99 of them at least will tell you it comes from fossils. If you have some sort of scientific evidence suggesting the contrary, let's have it, otherwise, why not leave science to the scientists?

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2008, at 9:31 PM, rkolarsky wrote:

    As an oil and gas exploration geologist, I can tell you that abiotic oil is a good topic for an afternoon conversation over tea, but as a viable technical concept it is garbage. It is very popular with the lay public, but among geologists in both academia and the oil and gas industry it has been discounted long ago. There is no "paradigm shift" here.

    For starters, abiotic oil is not at all a new topic. This was first kicked around by the Soviets in the 1950s in hope to find abundant energy sources to run their military machine, without having to control oil fields in the Middle East. However, the science of how hydrocarbon systems work was in its infancy then. In fact, has not been fully developed until perhaps a decade or two ago.

    Hydrocarbon systems are a complex delivery chain consisting of hydrocarbon kitchens, organic-rich source rocks, migration paths, reservoirs, seals and traps. When oil is found it is almost certainly not where it had been formed. (Read that again.) It does originate deep down below, but not at all through a mechanism implied by the abiotic oil theory. Oil and gas migrate into the trap along paths such as porous carrier bed or faults, leading from hydrocarbon kitchens located typically 15000-20000 feet deep or even deeper in the sedimentary basin. A fairly narrow range of pressure and temperature is required, along with an adequate time window, for the hydrocarbon kitchen to start producing oil and/or gas. A kitchen consists of a large accumulation of organic-rich shale that has been deposited in an anoxic marine or lake basin, and buried by basin subsidence to a sufficient depth, and exposed to temperature and pressure. What determines the amount and timing of oil and gas generated is the organic content of the source rock, and a fairly narrow window of pressure, temperature and time. Depending on the type of source rock, some kitchens will produce only oil, only gas, or both oil and gas. Geochemists can "fingerprint" the oil and determined exactly from what type of shale (marine, lacustrine) it came from and its geologic age. There no room for fantasizing about an inorganic source here.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2008, at 1:02 PM, maybelate wrote:

    Dear rkolarsky,

    Your description of natural petroleum creation is compelling. Critics of it (i.e. physicists) say that the temperatures and pressures at the depths you describe are not enough to create petroleum (i.e. not possible relative to the the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Can you address this?

    Thanks in advance

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Anaconda11 wrote:

    I find it amusing to have a number of stated oil geologists comment that abiotic oil doesn't.

    Because leading oil geologists do acknowledge abiotic oil does exist.

    "No one doubts that inorganic hydrocarbons may occur in association with hydrothermal systems." -- Michael D. Lewan, United States Geological Survey oil geologist, 2005

    "I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons." -- Michael D. Lewan, oil geologist, 2002

    "No-one disputes that non-commercial deposits of abiogenic hydrocarbons do exist, but commercial quantities seem to be elusive." -- Paul Wilson, oil geologist, 2008

    Before oil geologists get upset, Lewan does maintain abiotic oil occurs in small quantities.

    But scientific observations of the deep crust and shallow mantle show there is an abundance of carbon bearing minerals. Serpentinization of peridotites with catalysts and supercritical water produces abiotic oil. Oil geologists have failed to identify any limiting factors to this known geological process.

    Serpentinization has been proven experimentally in the laboratory; something so-called "diagenesis" has failed to achieve (turning organic detritus into heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330).

    Subsalt oil as found off the coast of Brazil is below a layer of salt several thousand kilometers thick, below the sedimentary level at temperatures and pressures outside anything predicted by "fossil" theory.

    "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer

    We've seen a good rendition of that here.

    For a body of scientific evidence (published scientific papers) supporting Abiotic Oil theory Google

    Oil geologists are most especially encouraged to examine the published papers and dispute the science.

    Subsalt, ultra-deepwater, ultra-deep, drilling proves Abiotic Oil theory -- and yes, it is expensive, but the deposits are huge and pencil out when oil is about $60 a barrel ($70 - $90 is perferred).

    Abiotic oil is a fact of nature.

    That's good economics.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2008, at 4:52 PM, americanoilman wrote:

    Wishful thinking

    Good luck.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2008, at 7:20 PM, turnipseedtales wrote:

    The nature of scientific theories ensures there will be some knowledgeable opponents, and on rare occasions they are proved to be right. Abiogenic oil is theoretically possible, but the validity of the theory has yet to be validated. Even if this theory is correct, it doesn't change where we look for oil - in good reservoir rocks or traps. Furthermore, investing is risky enough without investing based on a questionable theory.

  • Report this Comment On November 22, 2008, at 6:52 AM, pcbee wrote:

    Glad someone (JeanDavid) has mentioned global warming - even if there were plentiful supplies of abiotic oil it would be a very bad idea to use them.. A very foolish article......

  • Report this Comment On November 22, 2008, at 1:31 PM, skywest18 wrote:

    Great comments by all! This discussion about 'abiogenic oil' begs the ultimate question. Are we really going to gamble the future of industrial civilization on a theory? What if it turns out to be another false messiah in a long line of previous false messiahs? Will the next capital investment theory 'evolve' from 'buy and hold' to 'buy and pray'?

  • Report this Comment On November 22, 2008, at 1:36 PM, KanisSapphirus wrote:

    My only comment is this: abiogenic oil, regardless of its validity, can only account for *some*, not all, oil. Why? Because we already know how to make oil out of ogranic matter: biofuels.

    So even if it exists (and, as one person rightly pointed out, if oil companies were really convinced, they'd be drilling on dry land, not chasing terrifyingly expensive offshore deposits), it will not be cheap to tap those resources, massive or otherwise.

    In terms of investment advice, yes, one should consider information from multiple sources and points-of-view to be sure, but if you ask what is the impact on the long-term outlook for oil ... well, if the resources are so deep as to be extremely costly or even uneconomic to develop, then it doesn't matter if we're actually running out or if the resources are just too deep to drill efficiently, the price is going to skyrocket.

    The Chinese are looking at harvesting minerals from the moon, which is rich in titanium, among other things. I think we'll see colonies on the moon before we see mining companies shipping their materials via inter-planetary junkets, but either way, for a finite resource, the net effect is a massive increase in real prices.

    Information is no substitute for logic.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2008, at 1:01 AM, Anaconda11 wrote:

    Too late!

    The oil companies already do invest in abiotic oil.

    Subsalt oil is abiotic (so is all the rest, all oil is abiotic).

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Anaconda11 wrote:

    For a specific post and comments on Abiotic oil theory, see

  • Report this Comment On November 27, 2008, at 12:36 PM, cr0bar wrote:

    Lets suppose the Abiogenic theory is true.

    If this is the case, then the oil must be produced very slowly. If this were not the case, it must be obvious that we would have oceans of oil rather than water by now. After all, we've only been using it for 100 years or so, but presumeably the natural processes which create it have been working for hundreds of millions of years.

    Therefore to us, it would have exactly the same effect as the traditional explanation and would seem just as finite. Therefore in terms of oil supply, the point is moot.

  • Report this Comment On November 27, 2008, at 1:39 PM, OtherOracleOfOMA wrote:

    Um...OK. I'll probably not be betting my savings on the hair-brained ideas of a few Russian scientists, but thanks for playing.

  • Report this Comment On December 09, 2008, at 6:42 PM, youngbuckportor wrote:

    All of you old farts make me want to rip my hair out. This isn't even a debate. Research the known information. The deposits are both organic(maybe 2%) and inorganic(probably >98%). For you disbelievers- how could there be methane on other planets of our solar system if it was strictly biotically formed? Also, we won't run out of H and C for more methane to be created because it doesn't come FROM the core, it comes from the very upper mantle where the carbonate(usually old reefs) and water from the subduction zones comes into contact with the mantle(which is highly maffic in composition) at 60-100 miles below the surface. Labs have artificially created methane just like they can make actual true diamonds now under extreme pressures that are identical to the upper mantle. Then the methane is chemically altered over long periods of time in geologically stable areas-into crude oil, or in areas with many faults or fissures it stays as methane because it never reaches high enough pressure to be altered. We all know that rotting plants create methane, which eventually turns to oil under pressure, and that is where SHALE oil comes from. Coal is pretty obviously fossil fuel as well. All of the rest of the planet's oil is created from the recycling of crust during tectonic movement and you are extremely ignorant of the truth if you say anything otherwise. Go ahead and keep being ingorant though and I will gladly reap the benefits of scientific proof that you choose to disregard when I get out of college and become an oil geologist. Try to disprove this and I will gladly blog you back.

  • Report this Comment On December 09, 2008, at 6:50 PM, youngbuckportor wrote:

    Oh yeah, global warming IS true, but so what. If we can grow wheat in Siberia and citrus in New York, who cares if Florida goes underwater and becomes the Geogia keys- vast new areas will become able to grow agriculture which could feed billions of people. Burn stuff free of guilt.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 776640, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/26/2016 3:41:23 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 6 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,169.27 -53.76 -0.30%
S&P 500 2,143.16 -8.17 -0.38%
NASD 5,283.40 -26.43 -0.50%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/25/2016 4:00 PM
BP $36.04 Up +0.17 +0.47%
BP CAPS Rating: ****
CVX $100.77 Up +0.11 +0.11%
Chevron CAPS Rating: ****
DO $16.98 Down -0.18 -1.05%
Diamond Offshore D… CAPS Rating: **
DRYS $0.39 Up +0.03 +9.00%
DryShips CAPS Rating: **
PBR $12.18 Down -0.23 -1.85%
Petroleo Brasileir… CAPS Rating: **
RIG $10.03 Down -0.08 -0.79%
Transocean CAPS Rating: ****
XOM $86.72 Down -0.19 -0.22%
ExxonMobil CAPS Rating: ****