Why can’t oil be a renewable resource made by natural inorganic?

Question

products, and not just from decomposition of dinosaurs and prehistoric plants ?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

Answer 1

It is renewable, it just takes a few million years for the swamp debris and ocean sediments to get folded under the earth and make the conversion.

Answer 2

Yes Thomas Gold's theory is being proven every day when old or depleted oil fields begin pumping again.

A theory of Thomas Gold which I believe will also be proven someday:

"Gold is best known for developing, along with Hermann Bondi and the late Fred Hoyle, the steady-state theory of the universe."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...

This will really aggravate the 'big bang' evolutionists.

Answer 3

The process is very expensive right now.  It is much cheaper and a better use of resources to get the oil out of the ground.

Answer 4

It is a renewable resource. Or at least it was. A renewable resource is one that can sustain itself unless abused. In the 1920's, people discovered that we had such an abundance of oil, that we didn't know what to do with it. That is why our society today depends on it. Our society was designed to use up that oil for something. Now we have come to the point that the oil supply is finishing.

Back to renewable resources, an example is fresh water. We had a lot of fresh water on earth. Now, if you picture earth's entire water supply as a litre of water, a drop of that is available for human consumption. That is how much we are abusing it.

Answer 5

That was an interesting read, thanks.  But calling it renewable, or, as the article headline reads, sustainable, is a bit of a stretch.  Toward the end of the piece it says:

"... while not inexhaustible, deep Earth reserves of inorganic crude oil and commercially feasible extraction would provide the world with generations of low-cost fuel."

So what this would appear to do is give the world some wiggle room in finding alternative energy sources. In any case, as it stands the burning of fossil fuels, whatever their origin may be, are problematic.  But I'm glad you put this on my radar.  Again, thank you.

Answer 6

I am very much certain that it is because the evidence the abiotic oil side provided was just so much more convincing.

Answer 7

The article to which you refer has only one reference cited, and it is "The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum" by J. F. Kenney , Vladimir A. Kutcherov, Nikolai A. Bendeliani, and Vladimir A. Alekseev.  ( http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/... )  The final conclusion drawn by that paper is:

"The H–C system does not spontaneously evolve heavy hydrocarbons at pressures less than 30 kbar, even in the most favorable thermodynamic environment. The H–C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment."

Basically, because of the temperature and pressure requirements, it would never be practical for us to produce those hydrocarbons, certainly not at the rate we use them.  It's good to know there may be a lot more than we thought though.

EDIT:  Thanks Miss P, I did understand it, but whether or not it is a fossil fuel is not the important thing in my opinion.  It doesn't make a difference whether it is organic or inorganic, it's not renewable in the sense that we can make more of it.