Oil, are we really running out?
- Monday, December 7, 2009, 4:39
- Iowa, News Center
- 825 views
- 16 comments
By Dave Funk, Candidate, Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District.
Just a few days ago, The American Thinker Blog posted a brief note by author Russ Vaughn about the science and theory behind the concept of fossil fuels.
Vaughn stated in his blog; “According to [Lawrence] Solomon, there is new evidence to support Russian and Ukrainian geological scientists who are convinced that the time-honored and universally-taught belief that petroleum deposits are derived exclusively from long-dead plants and dinosaurs is about as scientifically sound as the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming.”
About four years ago I read the book Black Gold, Strangle Hold by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Craig R. Smith. In this book, the authors maintained the same theory. If it is true that oil is formed from the hydrocarbons released from the Earth’s molten magna core, then we may very well have an endless supply of oil. It becomes just a technological challenge to drill deep enough to reach it.
Like the recently uncovered “Climate Gate” revelations about manmade Anthropogenic Global Warming, this is an issue we need to rapidly study and determine how we as a nation can adjust our energy policy to one that is led by the adults in America and not environmental zealots. If we really have a nearly unlimited source of oil and have ignored the science behind it, then it’s another example of how government interference in our economy has slowed our economic growth, artificially increased our energy costs and allowed a massive transfer of wealth out of our country.
This might just be another example of the stupid spending Congress has allowed to happen in this example by our dysfunctional Department of Energy.
Let’s drill here and drill now, restoring America’s energy security and creating what this nation badly needs, American jobs and a positive balance of trade.
About the Author
The Iowa Republican has written 306 stories on this site.
16 Comments on “Oil, are we really running out?”
Trackbacks
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
While many would agree that we should be drilling a lot more, it clearly may not be wise yet to base a campaign on “we have an endless supply of oil” based on such limited evidence. That is just asking for big trouble.
I don’t understand the logic behind the idea that we should simply continue to pollute the world with reckless abandon. Regardless of what our oil supplies are like or what the truth is on global warming, moving toward environmentally friendly sources of energy production and usage simply make sense and will provide long term benefits for humanity as a whole.
Oh, ye of little faith. Do you have no faith in modern technology to be able to provide us with plenty of clean safe fossil fuel?
I have far more faith in the private sector to be able to provide answers to potential pollution problems than I do in the ruling class who is trying to destroy capitalism.
Why would any Iowa candidate promote more aggressive drilling for oil (of which we have none in Iowa) instead of more aggressive policies to generate electricity from wind, solar, and biomass (of which we have plenty), which could be used to power electric cars?
Cost. Many of the others are only scams and not long-term viable. If they’re such great ideas why do they need huge subsidies to survive?
DVFO
I didn’t say anything in my comment about whether or not the movement toward an ecologically friendly energy system should come from government or the private sector. I do however believe both have a role in the process.
Oil and gas industries receive nearly $15 billion a year in subsidies in Europe and between $15 and $30 billion in subsidies here in the US.
From 1973 to 2003 the federal government gave $74 Billion in subsidies for research into Nuclear and Fossil Fuel research. In the same time frame the government provided $26 Billion is subsidies to renewable energy research.
Source: Energy Information Administration
Is the earth running out of diamonds?
As long as the planet continues to exist, oil is a renewable natural resource.
I’m not a geologist Peggy, maybe you can explain to me how oil is made via natural processes in quantities that will sustain our growing usage. It is my understanding that both the traditional understanding of the oil creation process and the process that is supposed to create “Abiogenic” sources of oil take hundreds of thousands of years to form and even longer to move far enough through the Earth’s crust to be viable for drilling.
Vast,
Didn’t you hear? Rabid environmentalists are, by and large, pathological liars. You don’t really know and neither do they.
The idea that resources are limited has become a sacred cow in society. Garrett B. Gunderson, the entrepreneur and modern philosopher who has dedicated his life to killing the sacred cows found in society, defines a sacred cow as “an individual, organization, institution, teaching, or belief often considered to be unreasonably exempt from criticism or questioning. Sacred cows are myths and powerful traditions that infiltrate our belief systems and distort our thinking.”
Although the majority of society believes that natural resources are part of a finite pie and therefore limited in nature and a threat to our standard of living, empirical data proves that human ingenuity promotes innovation in research and development, which, in turn, manipulates these scarce resources into becoming infinite in their ability to be utilized by man.
Society’s Malthusian like claims that resources are limited reject the findings of the great Population economist Julian Simon. I refer you to the book titled “The Ultimate Resource 2.” If natural resources are becoming more scarce, like Paul Ehrlich and so many scientists claim, then why is the price of these commodities lowering over time? The answer is HUMAN INGENUITY. Here are some of the ways human ingenuity impacts natural resources: First, as the price of a resource rises over time, at various break points it becomes unaffordable to people depending upon their socio-economic position. At each break point, those who can no longer afford that resource will find a cheaper substitute or, if the resource is not essential to life, choose to do without it all together. Second, as the price of the natural resource continues to rise, people will take the existing end-use of that resource and find ways to recycle it, which will lower its cost and make it more affordable. Finally, technological advances will create a means by which the processes required to refine the natural resource into a useable end product will be more efficient and effective. As a result, the amount of the natural resource required to produce the end product will be reduced or it will allow for less expensive and more abundant resources to be extracted and used in the production process to produce an end product of equal use and utility. At a minimum, each of the above instances of human ingenuity will extend the supply of a natural resource further into the future than anyone had ever thought possible or make its supply inexhaustible because the need for the resource has been reduced to such a degree that the supply could never be completely consumed.
I propose that the solution to these problems is innovation. Human ingenuity is the answer. Therefore, if the government does anything, it should promote ingenuity by offering monetary incentives. This will solve global warming, excessive pollution, raising gas prices, etc. The only requirement is a free society that allows innovative minds to work.
It’s funny because two hours ago I just got in an argument with my biology professor over this exact issue.
Dave has never said he’s about destroying the environment. Rather, he’s for conservation. That said, he obviously doesn’t stand for this wasteful spending and the rest of the world forcing undue burdens on the US. Which is precisely the net result of US blamed Climate Change. Don’t jump to conclusions that because he’s for drilling for oil that he’s anti-conservation, whether it’s the earth, or government spending it should be conserved.
By it’s very definition, “conservatism” threatens humanity. The skeptical, conspiratorial, defensive, “static” posture attendant with this ideology will (mark my words) be responsible for the great failure of modern civilization to (1) acknowledge that human activity impacts the environment (and the impact is accelerating), and (2) we have crossed into an era wherein we need to be more conscientious stewards of our environment. The opposition to science, refusal to heed multiple warnings, and failure to take climate change seriously by conservatives in this generation amounts to handing our children a toxic liability for which solutions may be beyond reach. Dave Funk is just another old school, self-interested politician (in the Ayn Rand mold) who is evading the real issue of the cause, impacts, and implications of climate change by engaging in distraction. Quarreling over whether we are running out of oil or not is irrelevant. It’s time for a change people. Wake the hell up.
Dave Funk is the most unintelligent politician I currently know of. The thought of him in any position of power, other than a tee ball coach, scares the h*** out of me. I agree with opposing the status quo these days, but running from intelligent thought is probably not the best way to do it.
PsYcK:
Considering we have never meet, I find it interesting that you would comment about my intelligence. Another source of information on this topic is available here; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm
I don’t have to be an expert on climate trends to understand that money and power are behind what drives most of the debate on energy and global warming. If it were not, the recent discovery of intentionally fraudelent data used by global warming proponents would have led those researchers to pronounce we were saved by their research and not to defend their fraudulent positions.
Positions that are leading the attempt to steal billions of dollars annually from the US and other developed countries on behalf of tinhorn dictators and despots.
http://www.CongressNeedsFunk.com