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: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo


Evidence is not anecdotal. How do you come up with that? We just had a 4.4 caused exactly by fracking and the evidence supports it's not "story telling" So, would you like to make that little bet now?


I have no doubt that the anecdote you just shared is a true story. Go back and read what I wrote. It is possible that fracking causes the surface to subside a little, causing tremors. The same thing can happen when limestone erodes, forming a sinkhole.




posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: jinni73

Yeah, there are different sources asserting differing production figures. I went back and took a look at the EIA's latest estimates and they conclude that the largest producers of oil are: 1) U.S.A. (12.5 mil bbl/d); 2) Saudi Arabia (11.6 mil bbl/d); and 3) Russia (10.8 mil bbl/d). I stand corrected.

On topic, I recently ran across an article that reports an Italian gas company has discovered, what could possibly be, the world's largest pocket/deposit of natural gas. My understanding, peak oil was a theory that was centered around the notion that the U.S.A.'s (domestic) oil production would plateau in the 1970's - give or take 5 years - but somehow it became a theory concerning global production. At any rate, the theory has been proven wrong concerning domestic and global production.

I am of the firm belief given the macro economic conditions that are likely to persist, globally (i.e. strong dollar, plateauing but still growing [if that makes any sense] Chinese GDP, an EU that is being led by the Germans, etc.), below-$2-a-gallon gas will be the future at the pump in the U.S.A. For how long? It depends. But I would wager a significant amount that it persist into the summer of 2016.

As I stood corrected on the Saudi's producing the most oil globally, I respectfully ask where you came up with the idea that oil is a mineral? I am much more concerned about what I am potentially missing as opposed to saying you're wrong (even if my initial comment very much came off that way).
edit on 1-9-2015 by BeefNoMeat because: typo



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I'm not convinced you know the meaning of anecdote. What I said is not a short amusing story, it's a fact.
Just google fracking earthquakes.
www.thestar.com...
www.cbc.ca...
ecowatch.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com...




It is possible that fracking causes the surface to subside a little, causing tremors. The same thing can happen when limestone erodes, forming a sinkhole.


So yes, in your own admission "it's possible". How about it's not only possible but it does? Not sure what limestone has to do with your analogy. Erosion is not the same as fracking.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo


So yes, in your own admission "it's possible". How about it's not only possible but it does?


My bad: I was unaware of the most recent research:

profile.usgs.gov...

This is a rigorous enough study that it goes beyond anecdotal evidence. The next time someone tries to be dismissive, link them this.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

If I didn't know better, it looks like your link is in direct support of what I said. Did you just do a 180?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: DJW001

If I didn't know better, it looks like your link is in direct support of what I said. Did you just do a 180?


No, I did a 90. I never said fracking didn't cause tremors, I just pointed out that all the evidence has been anecdotal, until June of this year. Now the data has been properly analyzed.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Then you've got me thoroughly confused. Tremors/earthquakes, 6 or 1/2 dozen of another, all the same pile. A direct connection to "tremors" caused by fracking/ waste water injection or what have you. I think you agree with me but are just contradicting while maintaining agreement. Makes for a convoluted discussion. I'll just assume you and I are in agreement that fracking causes earthquakes and leave it at that.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

There is a difference between a localized trembling of the ground due to settling, and a large scale violent event caused by the shifting of continental plates. Both are covered by the word "earthquake" but the use of that term is confusing. "Induced seismicity" is the current term of art for tremors caused by fracking rather than tectonic activity.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Well then. We're just arguing semantics. I never said fracking causes tectonic plate shifting I said earthquakes, albeit "induced seismic activity". Like I said 6 or 1/2 dozen of another. And for the record, it's not localized "settling" it's collapse caused directly by injection of water. Man made earthquakes. Don't know why we're going in circles when the evidence (non anecdotal) proves fracking is the culprit in the "localized settling". I think you're trying to sugar coat it but sadly, you're out of sugar.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
A great deal of crude oil contains bacteria. It is one of those chicken or the egg deals for that fact, as obviously, if crude oil has a beginning in broken down plants and animals, they would be a part of the process.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Having been in the oil business as a professional engineer for nearly 40 years and reading some of the posts, I thought I might clarify a few things.

1) Peak Oil was originally postulated by geologist King Hubbert in 1956 that accurately predicted peak US oil in the lower 48 in 1969. The technique used was really not geology, but a statistical analysis of production rate of a virgin geologic basin. Succinctly, as a new basin is drilled the bigger more prolific oil fields are found first, primarily because they are bigger and easier to find (Duh). As the fields are brought on line production increases rapidly and depletion occurs where the production begins to decline, even though new drilling continues. However the smaller field’s new production is not sufficient to offset the decline of the large fields. This method has been applied to the world as a whole rather than just a basin. Therefore new exploration in virgin basins could invalidate the conclusion that we will soon reach peak oil. However, it is worthwhile to note that there have been very few discoveries of supergiant (10 billion barrel+) fields since Prudhoe Bay Alaska in 1968.
2) Oil is not found in vast underground caverns. It is produced from the microscopic pore spaces between sand grains or solution holes in limestones. Think about how a sponge holds water, these rocks hold oil and gas similarly.
3) There is a difference between oil in place and recoverable reserves. Recoverable reserves as defined by the Society of Petroleum Engineers are only those barrels that can be “economically” recovered using existing technology. If oil prices increase then the volume of recoverable reserves will increase. Primary reserves versus oil in place vary widely to as little as 5% to as high as 40% of oil in place. Additional reserves may be recovery using secondary and tertiary techniques to add an additional 10-30%. The recovery of over 50% of oil in place is highly unusual. Ultimately, there’s that old problem called physics in addition to economics that makes additional recovery impossible.
4) The “shale oil” production is primarily due to two factors-$100/bbl oil and the Federal Reserve Bank printing money that has had nowhere to go. There has been no vast improvement in technology and realistically very little oil is actually produced from the shale as it is physically impossible to have a molecule of oil flow out of a shale matrix in less than geologic time. The oil reported from the “shale” is actually being produced from the typical limestone reservoirs that abut the shales above and below that have been produced for 50 years. The reserves per well are minimal and will deplete rapidly. Once drilling stops due to the rapid decline rates the production rate will decline rapidly. In addition, the dramatic increase in US domestic production has about peaked as new drilling will only be able to offset the rapid decline of the old wells.
5) The Saudi’s oil production comes primarily from the Ghawar Field discovered in 1936. This field is 10 times bigger that the second largest oil field ever discovered. This field is a carbonate rock (limestone) that has unusual characteristics that have made it extremely prolific for a very long time. These characteristics are now creating production problems where the Saudis in the last ten years have undertaken a flurry of activity to maintain production as well as exploration activity that have had marginal results. See Hubbert above.
6) In 1986 the world consumed approximately 55,000,000 bopd and had capacity of approximately 75,000,000 bopd. As a result oil prices declined and the oil industry went into a severe depression until the early 2000’s. The economic activity grew such that oil consumption increased approximately 2,000,000 bopd per year. The winter of 1995-96 was the first time that demand exceeded supply. Currently the world consumes approximately 90,000,000 bopd and production capacity is around 92,000,000 bopd. Blame Goldman Sachs for the high prices rather than Exxon. Exxon makes money by selling gasoline not crude oil and refinery margins are a lot better at low crude oil prices than high.
7) In 40 years I’ve never seen an oil reservoir become repressured that could not be explained by known engineering reasons. As such, the abiotic theory of hydrocarbon origin to me has yet not been proven. Since I have worked in the oilfields in Russia and the FSU, I pose one question. If they have prolific oil wells that never deplete because of abiotic oil why do they pay me to try to produce oil from thousands of wells in some of the most hostile environments in the world? In short, even if oil is abiotic and migrates from the mantle, it must still be accessible and recoverable which means it has migrated to shallow depths into porous and permeable sedimentary rocks that in every instance in my experience are being depleted.
8) If an aggressive drilling program was initiated in the known oilfields that are currently limited by governments in Iraq, Venezuela, Iran and Russia and the FSU the peak oil date could be extended dramatically. However, the lack of equipment and short fat guys like me that know how to get it out of the ground without killing people is limited, see British Petroleum.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jinni73


huge methane lakes were found.

the composition of crude oil has differing complexities of hydrogen & carbon = hydrocarbons


I think you are trying to argue that because Oil [contains methane] therefore methane = Oil, or something. Im not quite sure. If you could elaborate.

In any case, anyone who is familiar with fractional distillation will be well aware why there is a huge difference between the hydrocarbons in space and crude oil found on Earth.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: billyjack

excellent post, thank you for the education



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: billyjack

Valuable information. Thanks!
If those huge fields could be re-exploited, would it eventually make the cost of fracking unreasonable vs production?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: yulka
So methane is a more efficient fuelsource?


Less efficient as there is a shorter chain meaning it burns quicker



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:36 PM
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.


Yes some forms of oil have these elements attached into them the more valuable an oil like the Saudis or West Texas oil just means it has less contaminants in I;E sulphur. Sulphur has to be refined out due to the pollution it makes this adds on to the cost of production making less profit which is why OPEC oil is cheaper due to more impurities in it.

BUT at its very basic level crude oil is a formation of the elements carbon and hydrogen meaning hydrocarbons, It doesn't matter that we can only see methane as the process of forming oil from minerals exists on other planets then by basic logic that is how it formed on our planet yes maybe you can get brown coal from compressed peat but not black coal there have also been meteorites with complex hydrocarbons in them, as well as making crude oil in a laboratory from calcium carbonate and iron and one other element that my ever deteriorating memory can't remember aah found this file is 1.7mb for those of you with restricted bandwidth or just google kutcherov and oil

Stalin actually started off this research in the second world war.



Methane is the simplest and lightest of these elements due to only 5 atoms combining THIS IS THE ONLY BIT WE ARE INTERESTED IN we know the atoms are there are we know they can combine.

and If we can see It on other planets then that means there are heavier Items below the surface because we have witnessed the basic atoms combining instead of a hydrogen atom grabbing onto the carbon arm it was just another atom of carbon just the same as how oil is formed on our planet
If the atoms are there in the first place and we can see them with the nasa photos and these photos prove to us carbon and hydrogen have combined forming lakes then we know oil in large quantities can be on another planet and that is the real reason Oil is on our planet not from crushed plants and fossils


Table: Structural Formulas of the First Ten Continuous-chain Alkanes

Methane does not have a 1 next to it as it is more convenient to write but the next element has 2 carbon atoms that have joined together carbon has 4 bonds or arms one of the bonds has been taken up with one carbon atom therefore leaving 6 arms which hydrogen has attached to then we move on down the line adding on carbon atoms we can see the more carbon atoms the higher the boiling point

Name Molecular Formula Structural Formula Boiling Point (oC)
Methane CH4 CH4 -161.0
Ethane C2H6 CH3CH3 -88.5
Propane C3H8 CH3CH2CH3 -42.0
Butane C4H10 CH3CH2CH2CH3 0.5
Pentane C5H12 CH3CH2CH2CH2CH3 36.0
Hexane C6H14 CH3CH2CH2CH2CH2CH3 68.7
Heptane C7H16 CH3CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH3 98.5
Octane C8H18 CH3(CH2)6CH3 125.6
Nonane C9H20 CH3(CH2)7CH3 150.7
Decane C10H22 CH3(CH2)8CH3 174.1


edit on 1-9-2015 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jinni73

When can we use water as a fuel? Isn't it renewable, too? Why are we still lining the pockets of the oil companies? It's like we're stuck in the 18th century.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLord
a reply to: jinni73

When can we use water as a fuel? Isn't it renewable, too? Why are we still lining the pockets of the oil companies? It's like we're stuck in the 18th century.


Pro Ken is takes a lot of energy to break hydrogen bonds. If it takes as much energy to release energy you really can't use it to produce energy.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
A great deal of crude oil contains bacteria. It is one of those chicken or the egg deals for that fact, as obviously, if crude oil has a beginning in broken down plants and animals, they would be a part of the process.



Oil comes from chickens?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLord

Yes we can use hydrogen as energy, research Joe Cell also research Tesla's Radiant Energy which is the collection of Neutrino's emitted from the sun both of these have been proven to work by replicating them another one Is Emil Jahrs research done in 1905 of ground earth energy. and then we can connect a wire to either end of a rock which also can generate power although you need a big rock and long wires

If we had clean energy generated from the sun we would all have clean (Desalinated) water which would lead to an abundance of food but the people that control us all will not allow it as they can't stand over everyone and think they are better.
They normally bump most people off once they have worked out how to generate energy from different means although some they let through like the Joe cell running cars on water you just need to work out how to put it all together and not really tell anyone as we are not willing to stand together and most people are scared of what will happen to themselves if they stand up to them you need to have a greater dislike for what they are doing to others then to really worry about what they will do to you.
This is how we know our militaries are working for a small minority not the greater good like they like to tell us all. and all the time they are protecting the people that are killing them.

It is not about lining there pockets its about controlling us money is just a tool it comes from trees and banks have branches

also the pollution that has accompanied our industrial age has replaced the withholding of education only about 5% of the population could read and write before 1800 so they let us have knowledge but take away the capability of using it by retarding our brain, this is done other ways as well fluoride and bromine are 2 they fill the receptors that iodine should go into as well as clogging up your pineal gland which can contain 22000 ppm of fluoride by the time you die, Iodine is essential for the brain to work well.
carbon monoxide removes an oxygen atom from the air and the amount of cars ends up reducing the oxygen to around 15% in a city

Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University and Professor Jon Harrison of the University of Arizona concur. Like most other scientists they accept that oxygen levels in the atmosphere in prehistoric times averaged around 30% to 35%, compared to only 21% today – and that the levels are even less in densely populated, polluted city centres and industrial complexes, perhaps only 15 % or lower.

But the idea is to become aware of this and start educating yourself about your health and taking measures to counteract it they basically want people to climb out of the hole they have dug a lot of people don't want to realise this is going on and end up cracking up or escape into a world of numbness with the drugs alcohol tobacco TV even.

edit on 1-9-2015 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)







 
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join