It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
Petroleum is only crude oil

Four different types of hydrocarbon molecules appear in crude oil.

Alkanes (paraffins)
Naphthenes
Aromatics (Methane is in here)
Asphaltics

Crude oil also contains nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, iron, nickel, copper and vanadium

You can have methane without petroleum, but not the other way around.

Methane is an Alkane, but can be combined to make an aromatic www.sciencemag.org...




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: jinni73

How do you explain coal then?

Your Russian friends will be shocked when the oil and natural gas run out in 50 to 60 years then coal at 120 years from now.


It has been estimated that there are over 861 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 112 years at current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 46 and 54 years at current production levels.


Source



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I try to turn this in my head, giving all possible meaning of "petroleum", or cutting trought the bad use of word and trying to make sens of the incomprension of the people. Even with all that, the only answer I get is: The article is bull#ing a proof for an unproven theorie, and it does it maliciously. If you whant to prove something you have to work harder than that. Sophisme is not the way to go, I will be happy if you bring a true proof for presence of abiotic petroleum on earth in large quantity.

On that I'm out.
edit on 31-8-2015 by PersonneX because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: PersonneX
I try to turn this in my head, giving all possible meaning of "petroleum", or cutting trought the bad use of word and trying to make sens of the incomprension of the people. Even with all that, the only answer I get is: The article is bull#ing a proof for an unproven theorie, and it does it maliciously. If you whant to prove something you have to work harder than that. Sophisme is not the way to go, I will be happy if you bring a true proof for presence of abiotic petroleum on earth in large quantity.

On that I'm out.


There is no doubt ambiogenic oil forms. We have found deposits the problem is it has never been found in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves actually exist they do. Problem is can we find it and access them the expenses of drilling deep into the earth only to come up empty makes the expense not with it. Even if Earth does contain far more oil than currently thought, it's inevitable that reserves will one day run out. So tapping this as a new form of oil is unlikely. Far easier to just make our own.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Great let's build a hydro carbon rocket engine and fill our solar system with space smogg .. I thought we were building towards clean energy?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: jinni73

The oil theory was disproven years ago by Russia but it is not being told to us and therefore people think it still comes from fossils where are you getting your information from


So then ask yourself this genius, why does Russia need to spur development at 'hard-to-recover' wells if the oil just abiotically oozes up?


The world’s second-biggest oil exporter is seeking a tax system to spur development of distant or hard-to-recover resources amid falling production at fields set up mainly during the Soviet era. Source


Why are they drilling more wells if the old ones continue to produce oil magically?


He says that in H1 the volumes of operational drilling rose by 10.3%. Source



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: jinni73


Serpentinization[edit]
Methane could also be produced by a non-biological process called serpentinization[a] involving water, carbon dioxide, and the mineral olivine, which is known to be common on Mars.[46]


Wikipedia: Methane

It looks like there is a natural, non-biological way to produce methane.


Two possible sources: Inorganic and organic
(1) Inorganic- Hydrocarons form from reduction of primordial carbon or oxidized forms at high temperatures in the earth
(2) Organic- accumulation of hydrocarbons produced directly by living organisms, as well as the thermal alteration of biologically formed organic matter.

It is generally recognized that most hydrocarbons are produced by the organic method. A few hydrocarbons in the crust may be from inorganic sources, but the majority of them are from organic.


Source

It also looks like although there is an inorganic way to produce hydrocarbons, on Earth it is mostly organic. It is still a good distinction because it means there could be hydrocarbons on other celestial bodies that could be extracted. Extreme temperatures and the like on other planets and moons in the solar system could make it more likely there.
edit on 31amMon, 31 Aug 2015 06:31:31 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
None of this is news. Simple hydrocarbons were detected in comets 150 years ago. The article quoted in the OP is distorting a routine NASA statement to create the impression that it has officially endorsed the abiogenic hypothesis of petroleum formation. This qualifies the article as a [HOAX!]

Edit to add: I am open to the "Deep Hot Biosphere" theory, but this article does it a disservice with its lack of intellectual integrity.
edit on 31-8-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
NASA is just verifying what many already knew. The thing is that these oils are finite, they are not unlimited. The fact that we have them in the crust is also important to some extent, if we deplete them it may not be such a good idea. We need to evaluate what effect they have on the biodome if they are depleted and turned into other chemistry.

We need to conserve our resources, not exploit them and ruin the ecosystem. We have the ability to destroy the ability of this planet to support life, we are that advanced. No other animal can do that but we have overridden the checks and balances and can do it.

Some types of oil were derived from plants and animal as they deteriorated, but that does not account for even a third of the oil on the planet.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Great let's build a hydro carbon rocket engine and fill our solar system with space smogg .. I thought we were building towards clean energy?



indeed


all this quibbling... deep oil is not methane.... but my guess is that deep oil will soon go the way of Coal in the USA
~it will become a unused energy source because the pollution consequence far outweighs the usage/ need of 'cheap fuel'

the Agenda 21 & Agenda 2030 models being foisted on the global community will likely forbid both coal usage and 'oil' production (fracking or deep well inclusive) in favor of hydrocarbons/ LNG~natural gas~...& the diverse sources of renewable energy such as: solar/wind/tide/geo-thermal energy production & distribution

a well regulated, sustainable development energy model... which will be divvied out not just sold to market pricing models.
All that existing Coal and 'oil' will remain in deep-storage



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
The low price per barrel hasn't translated to the pump, the price of a gallon of gas is still so high that people are driving less than they used to, creating an apparent surplus, driving down the price of crude.

Oil mega giants keep exploring and drilling to have surplus in case something goes wrong with the big puddle in the Middle East. Like sinking a tanker in the straits or nuking the Crown Jewels, for instance.

Im sure I'm wrong there, somebody explain it…



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio


~it will become a unused energy source because the pollution consequence far outweighs the usage/ need of 'cheap fuel'

I don't think that Big OIl cares one bit if all life dies in the Gulf of Mexico from deep drilling or how many people drown in the Mediterranean fleeing war torn Middle Eastern Nations.

The oil will still be there. As far as they're concerned, the less complaining about biospheres and peoplespheres, the better.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1




and fill our solar system with space smogg


Hahaha...do you know what volume of space our solar system comprises?

"12 3/4 quintillion Earths would fill the Solar System"


answers.yahoo.com...


149,597,870.7 length 1 Astronomical Units (AU).
Earth's volume is roughly 1,097,509,500,000,000,000,000 cubic meters (www.physlink.com...
The radius of the Solar System is now considered to be about 100 AU. This is the point where the the Solar Wind (from the Sun) meets the Interstellar Wind (thank you, Voyagers) called the heliopause (www.solarviews.com... This gives a volume of 1.40e+40 cubic meters.
Dividing the Solar Systems volume by that of the Earth's gives about 12.78e+18 Earths. So, about 12 3/4 quintillion Earths would fill the Solar System.
edit:



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Uh oh, I knew you was going to say something!


I was just repeating what I've heard Phage and one of them was a geologist. But he worked for big oil so *shrug* who knows. The topic was about old oil wells refilling with oil and this dude made an off comment that some wells are far to deep to have been created by organic life.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: jinni73

What does NASA stand for?

It is an acronym for National Aeronautics and Space Administration,it doesn't stand for 'The National Authority of Something Anomalous', Just like The USGS is not a acronym for 'Universal Space Geometric Society' NASA looks to towards the sky for a reason, and the USGS looks at the ground for a reason.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: jinni73

Check this out.... It's not just Russia.

This is a great topic for so many reasons.

We are already waiting to exploit the Arctic. Sticky hands are ready to rape, ponder, and pillage this area.


'Cold War' for Arctic resources heats up as ice melts

As the planet warms, as northern sea lanes become accessible to shippers, as companies hungrily eye vast petroleum and mineral deposits below its melting ice, a quiet, almost polite, scramble for control is transpiring in the Arctic.

"Countries are setting the chess pieces on the board. There are tremendous resources at stake," said Rob Huebert, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

The frozen zone could hold 22 per cent of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas resources, according to the US energy information administration.

This map contains some of Al Jazeera's past coverage on Arctic issues, laying out some of the regional ambitions of various countries.





Russia plants its flag
Arctic sea ice hits a 'record low'
Contortions, communities and climate
Arctic wild at risk from climate change
Greenpeace boards Russian oil rig in the Arctic
Russia hosts mineral claims conference
Greenland seeks to tap Arctic riches
Russia's northern fleet
Yamal Peninsula gas deposits
NASA team finds 'rainforest' under Arctic
A 'new centre of world politics'
Arctic rhetoric allows for military purchases
Canada asserts its presence
Shell begins Arctic exploration
Iceland eyes Arctic shipping
www.google.com...


Oh for crying out loud, what else would you have us do? Ignore the resources available there? You realize the plastic making up the computer you are typing on COMES FROM OIL, right?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
The low price per barrel hasn't translated to the pump, the price of a gallon of gas is still so high that people are driving less than they used to, creating an apparent surplus, driving down the price of crude.

Oil mega giants keep exploring and drilling to have surplus in case something goes wrong with the big puddle in the Middle East. Like sinking a tanker in the straits or nuking the Crown Jewels, for instance.

Im sure I'm wrong there, somebody explain it…


You're joking, right? It ABSOLUTELY has translated to the pump. Prices are lower than they have been in years, were briefly below $2 a gallon, and are heading down again, with experts stating that we will *probably* have sub $2 a gallon gas for quite a while, especially if the Iran deal gets done.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
The low price per barrel hasn't translated to the pump, the price of a gallon of gas is still so high that people are driving less than they used to, creating an apparent surplus, driving down the price of crude.

Oil mega giants keep exploring and drilling to have surplus in case something goes wrong with the big puddle in the Middle East. Like sinking a tanker in the straits or nuking the Crown Jewels, for instance.

Im sure I'm wrong there, somebody explain it…


Ok, I have to go after this one again. Prices are low and pumping his high because of a refusal by any producer to slow down. The last time anyone slowed down, other producers stole their market share. So the increased availability coupled with slightly lower global demand has reduced prices. But the fear of loss of market share leads all of the major producers to refuse to back down. You know what you can thank for all of this? The U.S. and fracking. It's just that simple. Had we not gone down that road, the prices would never have dropped. For myself, I love it. Dumped the Ford Focus and picked up a 5.7 liter V-8 Hemi Dodge Charger brand new off the showroom floor almost 5 months ago. Love the sound and the fury of it and don't cry at the pump either, lol!



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo


Oh for crying out loud, what else would you have us do? Ignore the resources available there? You realize the plastic making up the computer you are typing on COMES FROM OIL, right?


Does that make it right? Umm.... no it doesn't.

Dependency on oil is definitely something we are accustomed to as well as a great money maker for the elite. Wars are fought over such and no... it's not right.

It's not right we have tons and tons of plastic in our waters... islands of them.

If you are not Recycling and believe in these resources long term... then you are a part of the problem imo.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
You're joking, right? It ABSOLUTELY has translated to the pump. Prices are lower than they have been in years, were briefly below $2 a gallon, and are heading down again, with experts stating that we will *probably* have sub $2 a gallon gas for quite a while, especially if the Iran deal gets done.


$2.03 right around the corner from me and most likely will be sub $2.00 next week.




top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join