Can we say goodbye to foreign oil, thanks to your neighbors cow? Amazing!
By ladyluna
@ladyluna (7004)
United States
March 22, 2008 8:21am CST
You asked for an alternative to foreign oil, well this may be your answer! An alternative to drilling for oil to power our world may be as close as your neighbors cow!
This is what science is all about -- truly amazing! Read on for the details.
"After three years of clandestine development, a Georgia company is now going public with a simple, natural way to convert anything that grows out of the Earth into oil....
What we're doing is taking the trash like corn stalks, corn husks, corn cobs – even grass from the yard that goes to the dump – that's what we can turn into oil ...."
It turns out that a specific bacteria, the same bacteria that causes cows to emit methane gas, is apparently able to convert any organic, green, waste matter into fuel for our automobiles. Mr. Bell, and his team, claim to have figured out how to speed up the process for production purposes.
I hope you find the rest of the story as intriguing as I do.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=59402
Does this, once and for all, refute the theory that oil is a finite commodity, as suggested by the "Peak Oil Theory"?
For those who may not be familiar with the "Peak Oil Theory", I'm sure you've heard statements like:
"Oil is a fossil fuel."
"Oil comes from the dinosaurs."
"There's only a fixed, limited amount of oil." Etc...
"Peak Oil" Theorists have long claimed that oil is an extremely valuable commodity BECAUSE it is a fossil fuel, and that there is only as much oil in the Earth as there was deposited dinosaur matter to decompose. Many, myself included, have long hypothesized that oil is not a 'fossil fuel' at all, but instead is a byproduct of naturally occurring processes, deep within the mantle of the Earth. Not surprisingly, Peak Theorists are concurrently in the news attempting to defend their long held beliefs. You can read about the "Peak Oil" theorists back-peddling here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59502
[b]So, what are your thoughts?
Is this a viable alternative to drilling for oil?
What kind of an effect might this have on gasoline prices?
And, might we finally be able to kiss our dependence on Hugo Chavez & Saudi Arabia 'goodbye'?[/b]
4 people like this
6 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
22 Mar 08
Well, the whole "peak oil" theory doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Oil is produced from dinosaurs and vegetation? I don't think so.
From what I gathered from this article, this company claims that it's technology can supply 2/3rds of our consumption, and do so by recycling CO2 and carbon that is ALREADY present in the ecosystem.
I hate to rain on anyone's parade here, but that ONE sentence just put the lie to the whole CO2 causes global warming argument.
Everything we do is recycling carbon and CO2 by converting it from one form into another.
We are using what is already there, and through that use we are putting it back into the system. We are not adding anything new, nor are we adding anything more.
We live in a closed ecological system, and we always have.
That is what makes the premise of this technology so simple.
As to the point of the article, if they think they have the capability to replace 2/3rds of our use, then there is no reason to think that they will not eventually produce 100% of our needs with more research.
As to our dependence on foreign oil... we could eliminate that simply by using our own reserves... and if this company is correct, then depleting our reserves is not a danger or a possibility.
As to gasoline prices... if we want to reduce the price of gasoline, then we need to remove it from commodities trading... as the traders are the ones who determine the pricing.
If this company is correct and the technology fulfills it's promise, then there would be no need of foreign oil.
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Mar 08
Hello Destiny,
You make a terrific point about our closed ecosystem. I remember someone once declaring that our CO2 problem was not our own -- that the reason that Mars was mirroring our planetary warming phenomenon was because our CO2 was escaping our atmosphere, and affecting nearby planets. I kid you not! So, I guess that space really isn't a vacuum, eh?
As for the possibility of reduced gas prices: Of course, one can never predict the market, but if Mr. Bell is correct, then the value of oil should plummet, because it will no longer be a fixed commodity. Of course, the costs of producing the oil will have to be considered. Though, even if the best possible rate would come in at, say $75/barrel, then we'd see the price drop per the comparison to today's $100/barrel. While, we'd also see a market correction to weigh the factor that oil is no longer a fixed commodity, but is instead subject only to production concerns. And, of course, we would have to factor in future competition, which would further lower the price, as production efficiency is achieved. This, I believe would bode very well for the consumer!
I'm thinking that the one and only variable that might affect this new method of oil production would be a limit on the amount of green waste. And, I don't think that that's really feasible -- as long as we're growing greens, there will be green waste. So, unlike orange juice and coffee, weather should not impede bumper crops of waste. It may temporarily restrict available green waste, though the corporate entity will always have the option of compensating for decreased availability by creating all avenues of import. Unless, of course, there is a time and ripeness factor. Which we cannot know yet, as the details have not been released.
So, if it turns out that Mr. Bell & his team are correct, and that oil is not a fossil fuel, but rather is a bacterial by-product, then I'm thinking that the Saudi's and Hugo Chavez will be none too happy!
All in all, I'd say that this is extraordinarily hopeful news!
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
23 Mar 08
Hi Luna... "I remember someone once declaring that our CO2 problem was not our own -- that the reason that Mars was mirroring our planetary warming phenomenon was because our CO2 was escaping our atmosphere, and affecting nearby planets. I kid you not! So, I guess that space really isn't a vacuum, eh"
Okay, now that I have fought back the urge to beat my head against the desk....
As I recall, CO2 is heavier than air, which is why it is absorbed into bodies of water like oceans and things. It can also collect in low places as well as mines and such and suffocate someone under the right conditions.
The chances of CO2 escaping into space and traveling to other planets in sufficient quantities to have an impact on their climate is extremely and stupendously ludicrous to the nth degree.
I can only hope that whoever told you that did not reproduce, because that particular gene should be kicked out of the pool.
They completely disregarded the Law Of Diffusion... assuming any CO2 actually made it into space...
Then there is the added consideration that CO2 is NOT a real factor in global warming to begin with.
While space is a vacuum, there are still trace gasses present.
As to the gas prices, if Mr. Bell is correct... then we could get out from under OPEC and oil would no longer be regarded as a commodity, maybe.
I just remembered the corn and grain futures and the like, which are commodities.
As to your green waste, I am thinking fast growing legumes and manure crops. Instead of tilling them back into the soil, growing them specifically for that purpose.
If Mr. Bell is correct then a lot of these Global Warming Plans and proposed laws will not be feasible.... they are not feasible now, but with luck they may become unattractive to legislators that want to be re-elected after this becomes proven and common knowledge.
As it is they are all too anxious to jump into things that have not been proven or verified as far as Global Warming is concerned.
I really hope Mr. Bell is right, because that would solve a lot of problems.
Okay, now that I have fought back the urge to beat my head against the desk....
As I recall, CO2 is heavier than air, which is why it is absorbed into bodies of water like oceans and things. It can also collect in low places as well as mines and such and suffocate someone under the right conditions.
The chances of CO2 escaping into space and traveling to other planets in sufficient quantities to have an impact on their climate is extremely and stupendously ludicrous to the nth degree.
I can only hope that whoever told you that did not reproduce, because that particular gene should be kicked out of the pool. 3 people like this
@AD11RGUY (1265)
• United States
23 Mar 08
"I remember someone once declaring that our CO2 problem was not our own -- that the reason that Mars was mirroring our planetary warming phenomenon was because our CO2 was escaping our atmosphere, and affecting nearby planets. I kid you not! So, I guess that space really isn't a vacuum, eh"
No, no, no! You've got it all wrong! Space IS a vacuum! And it is sucking up our CO2 and depositing it on Mars! In the near future, rumor has it, they will develop the vacuum to accept ALL gases from our atmosphere - well, just the harmful ones.
1 person likes this

@filmbuff (2909)
• United States
26 Mar 08
If the eggheads (and I use that term lovingly and in a good way) can make it work than I am all for it.
On a related subject, I read an interesting article that basically states that eating beef is doing far worse damage to the environment than all the cars on the road.
I can't remember where I read it, but it basically states that all the greenhouse gases being produced by cattle being raised for the slaughter is one of the major culprits of global warming.
I really don't want to give steak though...
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
27 Mar 08
Hello Filmbuff,
I live not far off from Los Alamos. And, in that unique, little city the residents affectionately refer to themselves as 'coneheads'. So, I think that your 'egghead' reference would be perceived as just fine. It may be one of the highest I.Q. population centers in the nation, but they're not without a sense of humor!
I'm 'with ya' on not giving up steak. I'm thinking that if Mr. Bell is really on to something, then we can cut the cattle some slack. Hey, it'll be the cattle who are initially responsible for this techno breakthrough. So, I say: Let them pass gas in peace! (Gee, do ya' think that I ought to take that on as my new mantra?)
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
22 Mar 08
Well to answer your question I would have to ask a question: How much per gallon would it cost to create this alternative oil. Look we can power our automibles with almost anything, but does not mean that it would be cheaper. Ethonal is a great example. Sure we can grow our fuel, but it is not cheaper. First ethonal is expensive to make. Second it makes everything else more expensive, because everything we eat either has corn in it, or is feed corn. The answer to the price of gas is to get the federal, and state governments to start allowing new oil refineries to be built. We as a nation have not had a new refinery built in over 40 years. The EPA we not allow building prement to be issued for the construction of new ones.
As for the Peak Oil theorist I have a statement for your. In the begining of the 1900's the early Peak Oil theorist thought the the oil supply would only last for the next 25 year. Around the 1950 they believe that we would run out by the year 2000. The problem is everytime they make a statment a new oil field is found. The true is no one know how oil is fromed.
2 people like this

@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
22 Mar 08
Well if you can do it cheap enough I am all for it. I do not have a problem with new sources of fuel, but it must be the same or cheaper than gas. Also does this alternative oil preforms the same as regular oil in the engine. Does it produce just as much horsepower, or get as much miles to the gallon. Without this information I cannot really answer this discussion with a yes, or no.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Mar 08
Hello Gewcew,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Gewcew!
How much would it cost to create an alternative? I don't know. I also don't know how much an equivalent gallon of shale oil would cost to produce. However, our dependence on foreign oil has positioned us in a very uncomforatable predicament.
It was previouly determined that shale oil would be too costly to extract, that is until oil prices went through the roof. Now, shale oil extraction is a reality. In fact, the USA has the largest shale oil reserves in the world, primarily located within the Rocky Mt. Range, and in Utah.
You needn't convince me that ethanol production is a fool's errand. It may be good for farmers, but not for anyone else.
You're spot on about refineries! Though you're slightly off the mark on why "Peak Oil" is an erroneous theory. Specifically, we have seen concrete examples of 'tapped out' fields from the 1970s replenish their volume. Most notably in Louisiana. So, it isn't just the discovery of new oil fields that rebuts the "Peak Oil Theory".
As for the truth being that no one knows how oil is formed: Well, the "Peak Theorists" claimed that they knew exactly how oil is formed. They have repeatedly cited when oil reserves would tap out, and each time, they've been wrong.
Though, you haven't tackled the prospect of manufactured oil from green waste. Do you have any thoughts on that? Or, the content of the articles referenced?
1 person likes this

@WhatsHerName (2716)
• United States
25 Mar 08
That's very interesting.
I have been composting for about 25 years now. I have noticed that black goo. The last place I lived in, I had the village compost almost in my back yard. It was a dream come true for me. I tried to visit every day in the summer. It was an endless supply of rich black soil as well as grass clippings, worms and even plants and bulbs.
It sounds like a very good plan to me.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
26 Mar 08
Hello WhatsHerName,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
Yes, I agree that it's very interesting. I will be keeping my eye on this story and any others that emerge about Mr. Bell's business proposal, and will share them if I see them.
All in all, I'd like to see alot more coverage about this and other similar proposals. I believe that it will bode well for all consumers.
So, living in compost heaven, did you take advantage of it, and grow your green thumb?
1 person likes this
@AD11RGUY (1265)
• United States
23 Mar 08
Great articles you've linked here! And of course more great reading once on those sites! Thank you!
As for this being a viable alternative, yes it is. And it's been proven time and time again in varying ways (as technology to do it changes) since the '70s thanks to the embargos back then. As a matter of fact, back in '79 when I attended Cal Poly, Pomona, there was work in this vein being conducted just to see how viable it was. It wasn't a big program, but the fact that it was even offered speaks volumes. And just across the street to the west, Spadra Tech, as we affectionally called it (Spadra Landfill, Los Angeles County Waste Management), was finally filled and closed. It became the first landfill I saw that pipped the methane gas created in the fill for use and sale on the market. So, yes, yes, yes! It is a viable alternative!
As to the effect on gas pricing....too much political involvement to really know. And I don't just mean governmental politics. Oil companies are just that - oil companies. They want to sell oil. If they were into alternative fuels, they would not have crunched the efforts of George Washington Carver and Henry Ford back in the late '20s when the first mass production of alternative fuel was being spearheaded. So I fear that this practice will continue thus making a minute effect on fuel pricing. It's not in their best interest to allow alternative fuels to go big scale.
As to our dependence on Chavez and the Saudis - no I don't see that happening for a VERY long time. The business ties that allow their control to exist in the first place are not interested in losing any of their phenomenal profit from conducting business as is. For reference, see the Carlyle Group. So I forecast not much change over the next 50 or so years. Until the greedy are somehow uprooted and control is returned back to supply and demand, I see minimal change in this status. MAYBE, just maybe a state or two will find a way to become independent on its own from foreign oil. But I see Big Brother either capping or eliminating this all together to keep the foreigners happy. Sorry for the gloomy outlook, but I can't see the very rich letting go of their fortune machines.
1 person likes this

@AD11RGUY (1265)
• United States
23 Mar 08
Cal Poly was experimenting with methane gas from the swine unit as an alternative fuel. Not so much locomotion but more so a source of free, burnable power. And I got to thinking about the old International-Harvester trash trucks that serviced L.A. back then and went on a search for them. No luck, but I did run across this:
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/01/21/story9.html
So, there is a bigger chance than I had presumed last night of us becoming fuel independent in the near future. So your optimism wins out! I look forward to the day I can power my own car from the night befores emissions. What a gas! 

1 person likes this

@xXxMikesWifeyxXx (3072)
• United States
22 Mar 08
I think anything can happen, But i dont see this stopping us from buying foriegn oil. because once we do this. we wont have enough to keep up with how much gas is ganna be sold. so inbetween times. we will need to buy from whoever.
But im all for it if it does work and if it makes less polutants in the air.
1 person likes this
@xXxMikesWifeyxXx (3072)
• United States
22 Mar 08
Umm.. please delete this. i feel like such a dummy:(
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Mar 08
Hello MikesWifey,
I'm sorry, but it is impossible to delete a discussion once it's started.
Though, why would you want to delete your contribution?
You've made a valid point, in suggesting that manufacturing ability might not be able to keep up with our demand.
As for decreased pollutants: Who knows? If we've figured out how to 'easily' manufacture oil from green waste, who's to say that some other discoveries relating to pollution control, aren't down the pike?
1 person likes this








