fossil fuel?

Ok, so in school they teach you that fuel comes from dinasurs. Dinasaur dies, gets burried, and then wabam fuel. This lesson goes deeper im just not guna get into it deep. Its sounds good right? But if you go back to pangea, since thats what the world was like when there were dinasurs how come all the fuel is in places like the middle east and alaska and gulf of mexico. How come there isnt alot of fuel all around. There might be a way to debunk this theory and if there is please tell me. Also i read in the previous thread that most of our oil is in the rocky mountains. So why dont be save troops and go out west?

[edit on 17-9-2006 by ramonerocker320]

Originally posted by ramonerocker320
Ok, so in school they teach you that fuel comes from dinasurs.

I wouldn't be listening to any teacher that tells you that. Fossil Fuels don't come from dinosaurs.

how come all the fuel is in places like the middle east and alaska and gulf of mexico.

The organisms that oil did form from were around in that region, and the preservation conditions were correct.

How come there isnt alot of fuel all around.

Because its not formed from dinosaurs.

There might be a way to debunk this theory and if there is please tell me.

Debunk the theory that fossil fuels is from dinosaurs? I'd think that the lack of dinosaur fossils in most oil fields goes a long way torwards that. Also, the biomass doesn't seem right. You'd need a huge number of dinosaurs to die all around the same time, and be immediately buried in just the right conditions, etc etc, in order to get any of them processed into petroleum.

Also i read in the previous thread that most of our oil is in the rocky mountains. So why dont be save troops and go out west?

?
Because its not out there.

Mate, stay in school and you just might learn how to use


GOOGLE

Rule of thumb . . . Don't ask questions you can find the answer to.

Hehe, well, atleast he's taking interest in the subject.

The above notes are true. Oil isn't Dinosaurs. Or atleast, most of it isn't. Oil is the result of a VERY long and complex process of organic chemistry involving large amounts of bio-mass.

Keep learning.

Of, on the oil in the Rockies... what they've been talking about is Oil Shale. Basicly it's rock with lowgrade oil fused within it. While it's seen much hype lately, it's not a realistic source. It is currently impossible to extract oil from oil shale without expending more energy than you get by buring the oil that you recover. That's a very big problem and may be one that stops oilshale from ever becoming a valid resource.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For why i currently believe that the Abiotic theory best explains the observations we have made and continues to best predict where oil will be found in the future...

Stellar

put it this way, if we use anymore we'll all die

Originally posted by Hemlock
put it this way, if we use anymore we'll all die

I would LOVE to understand what this is supposed to 'mean' as based on current consumption levels we have ( without finding a drop more) oil&gas for another 170 years. Why will using it kill us?

And no more one line comments!

Stellar

The opinion that has prevailed among most scientists since the 1870’s is called the biogenic theory. This “holds that biological debris buried in sediments decays into oil and natural gas in the long course of time and that this petroleum then becomes concentrated in the pore space of sedimentary rocks in the uppermost layers of the [Earth’s] crust.” This process then produces petroleum, whose main components are hydrocarbons—that is, hydrogen and carbon. However, since the 1970’s this theory has at times been challenged by some scientists.

In the August 20, 2002, issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the article “The Genesis of Hydrocarbons and the Origin of Petroleum” was published. The authors argue that the origin of natural petroleum must occur at depths that are “well into the mantle of the Earth” and not at the much shallower depths generally accepted.

Physicist Thomas Gold has suggested some controversial theories and explains his reasons in detail in his book The Deep Hot Biosphere—The Myth of Fossil Fuels. He writes: “The theory of the biological origin of hydrocarbons was so favored in the United States and in much of Europe that it effectively shut out work on the opposing viewpoint.

This was not the case in the countries of the former Soviet Union.” That was “probably because the revered Russian chemist Mendeleyev had supported the abiogenic [not biological] view. The arguments he presented are even stronger today, given the greatly expanded information we now have.” What is the abiogenic view?

Gold states: “The abiogenic theory holds that hydrocarbons were a component of the material that formed the earth, through accretion of solids, some 4.5 billion years ago.” According to this theory, the elements of petroleum have been deep in the earth since the earth’s formation.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
It is currently impossible to extract oil from oil shale without expending more energy than you get by buring the oil that you recover. That's a very big problem and may be one that stops oilshale from ever becoming a valid resource.

I've never understood why it was impossible. Why can't they use nuclear energy to extract the oil from oilshales?

Does anyone know the answer to that?

Speaking of Dinosaurs & oil; Do you remember the Sinclair Oil Company?

The corporation's logo features a large green dinosaur. I think it was a brontosaurus. It was their mascot. They used to give out plastic dinosaurs with fillups.

en.wikipedia.org...
Here is link to their logo with the Brontsaurus. Those were the days. Smiling attendants, washing your windows & checking your oil.

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
I've never understood why it was impossible. Why can't they use nuclear energy to extract the oil from oilshales?

Why would you use nuclear energy to get oil shale to....burn it for energy? You're better off just using the nuclear energy for whatever you want to use the oil shale for.

I've heard experts make the following predictions;

1.) we are running out of oil & should move to alternate fuels ASAP.

2.) We have plenty of oil, but it will be more difficult to retrieve. Thus more expensive. Like the Shale oil mentioned earlier.

3) We have plent of oil & will never run out.

So I guess it just depends on which expert and their analysis you choose to believe.

I am leaning to the 2nd scenario.


[edit on 1-11-2006 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Sparky63
The opinion that has prevailed among most scientists since the 1870’s is called the biogenic theory. snip

Most of the information in the partially quoted post above was from an article entitled Oil-How Do We Get It? Awake 2003 Nov 8 issue Page 4.

when the large masses of oil are gone and we (humanity) have moved on to other energy sources; Solar, bio chemical, nuclear, etc..

We would soon "bone up" on those technologies and get very proficient with them.

THEN, in this far flung future, we might use nuclear energy to harvest tar sands and shale oil to use the precious juice as lubricants or plastics. We waste a lot of oil just moving from here to there.

Dead steve.

A guy who wastes his share of oil too!