Some might think this good news . . .

[Richard D]

. . . but it's pretty scary to me (if it pans out to be true), given global warming.

Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.

“Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.

Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm

[Taverner]

1. Double edged sword

More cheap energy. Yay.

More cheap energy. Boo.

Of course if we just designed efficiency into our Petroleum use, we could mitigate global warming without going to Hydrogen or Solar or anything (although these would be tied in if it is more efficient to do so)

[demwing]

2. This also means that oil, if not dependant on fossil material

can possibly be found on other planets

[Kalyke]

4. Well, we know there used to be water on Mars, which means

there might have been life, which means there may be oil in those rocky landscapes.

[demwing]

9. I think you miss the point - Scientists are now saying oil might not be fossil based

which means it is not dependant on life - present or past. Which means you may find it on planets that never could have supported life. Not just Mars...

[TxRider]

10. Or it could mean that fossil fuels can be produced

By means that makes them carbon neutral....

Sequester carbon and use this process to make hydrocarbon?

[Libertas1776]

3. Can't these damn "scientists"

ever discover something useful, like a revolutionary, green, renewable energy source. Scientists have done so many great things in the past, but have also created a bunch of real steaming loads that have done nothing but screw us over...

We figured out how to split the atom.......yay, I think?

We created a weapon of mass destruction based on the atom....Oh, crap.

Uh we were wrong. It seemed like a good idea at the time...but now we are solely against, now that the the cat's out of the bag......thanks, a little late, don't ya think asshole!

We figured out the process to make cheap oil sans the whole waiting a million years with fossils thing......Are you sure that's a good idea?!!

Uh, we were wrong again. Sure it seemed like a good idea at the time...BUT. We're against it now, genie out of the bottle, blah, blah, blah you get it, right?............... Well, thanks again...asshole!

Hey, I think we just figured out how to clone an entire race of super human beings, what's the worst that can happen?...........*gunshot* and a thud

[madokie]

5. I've always felt that coal and coke are the by products of long ago life here on earth

But I've never thought for a second that oil is also.

[stopbush]

6. The big debate is whether fossil fuels is a misnomer.

I know that this debate has been raging for a long time, but the scientists who point to the depth that oil is sometimes found at have a good point: how could fossils be involved in producing fossil fuels if fossils never get down to the depths where such fuels are produced?

Yes, abundant oil is a two-edged sword. On the other hand, abundant oil resources COULD mean a move away from so-called fossil fuels. Too much oil, and the price per barrel crashes to the point where producers go out of business (it wasn't that long ago that oil sold for $10 a barrel). Energy companies - whose business is to produce energy, not only gasoline - would need to seek revenue streams with a greater rate of return on investment and profit. That could move them into spending R&D on alternative fuels, fuels that would cost more per gallon to the consumer than would oil-derived products. They could push these new fuels under the eco banner.

Imagine the former oil companies pushing us away from gasoline because it had become too cheap, reshaping the energy market to where the internal combustion engine goes the way of the dodo just at a time when it would be super, super cheap for us to fuel those engines with gasoline. A new technology will emerge that's more expensive to buy and more expensive to fuel. We'll all get in line because we'll be told that it's better for the environment...just like we were sold CFL bulbs for their energy efficiency while ignoring the fact that the mercury they contain is a neurotoxic hazard of the first order (the 5 milligrams of mercury contained in an average CFL - barely enough to cover the tip of a pen — is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels).

Yes, abundant oil is a sword that's pointed right at the consumer, no matter what.

[baldguy]

7. According to the KTH website, Kutcherov is an Industrial Economist.

I'd think you'd need geology & chemistry to do this sort of thing.

http://www.kth.se/itm/inst/indek/medarbetare/IEO/1.10615?l=en_UK

Additionally, the idea of an abiogenic origin for oil is based more on political & philosophic grounds than on actual scientific evidence. If the idea that oil as a "fossil" fuel is called into question, that's one more argument for doing away with teaching the scientific method in schools in favor of creationism.

[Pangolin2]

8. Exactly. I disagree with your 2nd amendment position but you are right on target here.

...

[SoCalDem]

11. key phrase.."...could be found..."

Many countries are not eager to dig/drill everywhere, and prefer to buy from known sources

[demwing]

12. Imagine what $10 a barrel oil would do to the Middle East

You would see the area lose it's revenue stream and go broke. Could you imagine what that would do to our so called "war on terror" ?

[thereismore]

13. I read some of the article. It assumes there is methane. Add temperature and pressure,

and there will be ethane and higher hydrocarbons. The reaction seems reversible. No evidence that there will be accumulation of biocarbons, and where does methane come from? They draw very far-reaching conclusions. Maybe they are angling for jobs with Exxon, but I am not impressed.

[ohheckyeah]

14. If this is true

it can change so many things. It boggles the mind just thinking about it.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. Abiogenic petroleum lives again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin