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.

 

Oil is from Asteroids, not Organics!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
doubt it. although organic material could exist in some nebulas floating in space and they could've hitched a ride on a huge ass asteroid i doubt that enough of that stuff fell to earth




posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by groingrinder
I have heard of this theory before, but could not remember where I heard it from. Thanks for posting. I do not think we have been bombarded by enough asteroids to account for all the oil in the earth though.


I think the earth is 4.6 billion years old, plenty of time to accumulate oil from meteorite impacts. I’m not suggesting that every comet and meteorite impact contributed to oil buildup on earth because they are made of different “stuff”. Take a look at the moon through binoculars and you will see craters on top of craters. The earth would look similar if we didn’t have an atmosphere and weather to erode the marks. It’s likely that earth would be more “pot marked” and struck more often because of the greater gravity this planet creates. It can “pull in” more stuff.
I don’t think we can have it both ways, oil is from organic life or it’s not.



Actually if you consider thatthe Earth was formed by the accretion of space material, then yes it was all asteroids. Certainly this is a good argument for the source of carbon on the planet. but oil is not carbon nor is it carbon dioxide. it is hydrocarbon.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
Question: How were the layers of coal made?

Answer: A great many trees and plants, blown down by the waves and wind, became thick layers in the flood waters. They became soaked with water and sank. Then they were buried deep in the mud. Pressure crushed them together and turned them into black substance (material) called carbon. It takes 12 feet of wood to make one foot of coal. There are coal layers which are 60 feet thick. Today, there is no place on earth where coal layers are still being formed from plant life. Trees and plant life that fall on the ground decay (rot) and become part of the topsoil.

The argument is that this doesn't happen, and that these materials came from asteroids.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by kinglizard]



The Carboniferous period



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   
That's the first time I've heard that theory, but regardless of where the oil came from it's not being replaced as fast as we use it right? If there's oil in our solar system maybe we can utilize it somehow.

I have heard that water came from comets & I read recently that there is some kind of water objects bombarding us on a regular basis even today. Anyone recall that?



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by outsider
That's the first time I've heard that theory, but regardless of where the oil came from it's not being replaced as fast as we use it right? If there's oil in our solar system maybe we can utilize it somehow.

I have heard that water came from comets & I read recently that there is some kind of water objects bombarding us on a regular basis even today. Anyone recall that?



earth's atmosphere is an open system. spacebourne and earthbound gases and particles are trapped or released from the upper atmosphere. it's almost like earth is breathing, the way i see it.



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
But I could be open to other interpretations if better evidence came up.


Detection of hydrocarbons in comet Hyakutake



Astronomers observing the close appraoch of comet Hyakutake (C/1996 B2) to the Earth have detected large quantities of saturated hydrocarbons ethan (C2H6) and methane (CH4) with the use of high-resolution infrared spectrometer at the NASA Infrared Telescope facility on Mauna Kea, Hawaii.

This is the first time that saturated hydrocarbons have been found in a comet, suggesting comet Hyakutake may belong a new class of comets. An abundance of ethane comparable to that of methane implies that comet Hyakutake must have experienced very different conditions during its birth than other comets that do not contain ethane.

This conclusion also has potentially profound implications for scientific theories that describe the primordial conditions that led to the formation of the Sun and the planets.

Links:
www.windows.ucar.edu...=/headline_universe/astrophysics/hyakutake.html
www.qadas.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Saturn’s giant moon Titan is a Ocean of hydrocarbons



Saturn’s giant moon Titan could provide insight into the origins of life. For while Titan is far too cold to support life, it's a good place to look for life's molecular building blocks. Titan is swathed in a thick haze of "smog-like" chemicals such as methane and ethane. "Gasoline-like" liquids may rain down and cover portions of the surface in a dark ocean. Yet, surprisingly, this strange chemical composition resembles that of early Earth. The hydrocarbons that envelop Titan are chemically only a few steps away from the organic compounds that make up life.

If hydrocarbons are only formed by the decay of fossils and plant life, then Titan shouldn’t have any of these fuels.

nai.arc.nasa.gov...
astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov...
astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov...
news.bbc.co.uk...

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by kinglizard]

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by kinglizard]



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Polar Bear
Well let's see,

Even if there is a inexaustable supply of abiotic oil coming from somewhere in the core and feul is free. What are we to do about global warming or is that a myth also?

Polar Bear



Hey, we have a winna! Right on both counts, my friend.

Oil reserves once thought tapped out are being re-filled from the bottom upward.

The concept of Global Warming was merely a political tool based upon a model which actual measured data have not proven. In fact, the Earth is still in an Ice Age but the good news is we live in a time of moderate de-glaciation.

The bad news is, the powers that be are filling both the educational and scientific communities with such BS thats its really tough separate the lies from the truth...whatever that may be.


ET3

posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   
There is more information about this if you dig a bit deeper into the past of this discovery. I think it was the Russians scientists in about 1957 that first published a paper on this? Good reason for the oil holding families to sell off their oil companies, which they have.



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
If the moon was formed in the same way as the Earth, shouldn’t it have oil as well?



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
kinglizard,

Love this post. After seeing such articles as:

news.bbc.co.uk...

I have to wonder whether this whole methane, ethane, hydrocarbon issue is being deflected by scientists as non-science on purpose. I mean, come on, we've found many naturally occurring hydrocarbons on moons and other planets within our solar system, but that doesn't make anyone argue that there must have been life there. It seems that amongst planetary scientists, the chicken v. egg argument of life v. hydrocarbons has already been discussed and solved. They find hydrocarbons everywhere, but never use it as an indicator of life. By extension, they become a 'natural' geologic process, but no one extends that theory to earth's geology. Why do we have to have the only planet that made hydrocarbons with biomass when it's obvious that it's not considered to be a prerequisite for other planets?

I take articles like this as indicators that we are somehow ignoring a correlation between natural hydrocarbons and 'typical' geological processes:

www.spacedaily.com...

Not that I imagine diamonds falling from the sky, but, obviously, Earth posesses the appropriate amount of pressure beneath it's crust to create diamonds and no one is willing to concede that similar processeses could be generating oil.

My views on this subject usually get me lambasted as a person who isn't eco-friendly, but that's not true. I don't believe that an abundant, continually refreshed source of oil means that we should burn through it with reckless abandon. Quite the opposite...in the same way our overpopulation has skewed the composition of the atmosphere, our pollution will also skew a balanced system. My argument is that we could concentrate on more socially oriented issues than wealth generation/maintenance issues when we finally fess up and admit that oil is in abundance and will forever be.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
If this is the case, then all of the planet in our solar system as well as the sun should have signifigant amount of hydrocrabons on them. We have yet to come across evidence for high concentrations of hydrocarbons on most of the bodies in our solar system.

Also, what becomes of these hydrocrabons once an asteroid or comet enters an atmosphere? If they reside on the exterior of the space rock then virtually all of it would be burned up on entry. This leave only the possibility that all oil on a body was deposited before the development of an atmosphere.

I doubt this theory, but I also don't cling to the fossil fuel theory either. One thing can be said though, the oil field are NOT filling themselves back up. If you disagree with me then rather than look at the claims of oil companies and thier purchased science and look at thier fields. Why shut down pumps and rigs if the reserve is filling back up, at least fast enough to maintain our oil supply?

This is a THEORY as is the fossil origins of oil.

In all the talk of the source of oil I can't help but think people are over looking the fact that oil reserves in known wells are dry or dropping while discovery of new ones is slowing (stopped at this point, but may be short term).



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I understand your skepticism. We have all been taught that oil was formed from the decay of biological material. However no scientist can say how the process works. When I read reports from the scientific community that they have found hydrocarbons on asteroids and other planetary bodies I am lead to believe that Earths hydrocarbons aren’t based on organics and probably form from some natural processes in the universe.

If Titan has hydrocarbons I presume that it wasn’t from the decay of biological material. This is an article named "Titan's Oily Lake" about hydrocarbons found on Titan.


Titan's upper atmosphere -- photochemical reactions similar to those that cause urban smog -- could have resulted in large amounts of liquid and solid hydrocarbons raining onto Titan's frigid surface.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   


2) Hydrocarbons from a particular oil field do not exhibit chemical changes as the depth of their extraction increases. But the fossils above them have constantly changing biologi-cal "signatures," which relate to their particular paleontological periods.


So.... if you are saying that all oil around the world is identical except for a few trace metals....

The North Sea oil reserves consist mainly of 'fractions' (what each different hydrocarbon is called - ie Octane and Butane are two different fractions) that are in the Octane range - that means that the oil is ideally suited for petroleum and driving cars. Brum brum brum.

The Texan oil has longer chained hydrocarbons for heavy fuel oils used to power ships. If all oils are supposed to be the same and come from the same source, why such a big difference??

Only the fact that differing plants and animals making the oils could account for this.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Humpy
So.... if you are saying that all oil around the world is identical except for a few trace metals....

The North Sea oil reserves consist mainly of 'fractions' (what each different hydrocarbon is called - ie Octane and Butane are two different fractions) that are in the Octane range - that means that the oil is ideally suited for petroleum and driving cars. Brum brum brum.

The Texan oil has longer chained hydrocarbons for heavy fuel oils used to power ships. If all oils are supposed to be the same and come from the same source, why such a big difference??

Only the fact that differing plants and animals making the oils could account for this.


That’s a good point. But I don’t think its conclusive evidence that oil is from organics. The differences in the hydrocarbon structure could be caused by different pressures or geographic processes. It could be from other substances like atoms of sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen, as well as metals such as iron, vanadium, nickel, and chromium being mixed with the hydrocarbons.

Hydrocarbons are found in geographic areas where the amount of prehistoric life known to be at that location could never have provided the quantities of hydrocarbons involved. Most surface life is comprised of 90 percent water and 10 percent organic compounds. So, even if that 10 percent that is organic compounds had been entirely converted to "fossil fuels," it would not come close to the mass of hydrocarbons already extracted during the last 130 years.


Chemical Composition
Crude oils and refined petroleum products consist largely of hydrocarbons, which are chemicals composed solely of hydrogen and carbon in various molecular arrangements. Crude oils contain hundreds of different hydrocarbons and other organic and inorganic substances including atoms of sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen, as well as metals such as iron, vanadium, nickel, and chromium. Collectively, these other atoms are called heteroatoms. Certain heavy crude oils from younger geologic formations (e.g., Venezuelan crudes) contain less than 50 percent hydrocarbons and a higher proportion of organic and inorganic substances containing heteroatoms. The refining process removes many of the chemicals containing these heteroatoms. All crudes contain lighter fractions similar to gasoline as well as heavier tar or wax constituents, and may vary in consistency from a light volatile fluid to a semi-solid.

Petroleum products used for motor fuels are essentially a complex mixture of hydrocarbons. Gasolines are mixtures of hydrocarbons that contain 4 to 12 carbon atoms and have boiling points between 30 and 210 degrees Celsius. Kerosenes used for jet fuel contain hydrocarbons with 10 to 16 carbon atoms and have boiling points between 150 and 240. Diesel fuels and bunkering fuels contain hydrocarbons with higher numbers of carbon atoms and higher boiling points. In addition, diesel fuels and bunkering fuels have greater proportions of compounds containing heteroatoms.

Upon release, the hydrocarbons that are composed of fewer carbon and hydrogen atoms vaporize, leaving behind a heavier, less volatile fraction. Gasolines contain relatively high proportions of toxic and volatile hydrocarbons, such as benzene, which is known to cause cancer in humans, and hexane, which can affect the nervous system. Gasoline and kerosene releases are exceptionally hazardous due to their high flammability. Crude oils and semi-refined products, such as diesel and bunkering oils, may contain cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other toxic substances.


Article



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest

One thing can be said though, the oil field are NOT filling themselves back up. If you disagree with me then rather than look at the claims of oil companies and thier purchased science and look at thier fields. Why shut down pumps and rigs if the reserve is filling back up, at least fast enough to maintain our oil supply?



Actually, I did here a blurb in the news that some off shore oil reservours are refilling albeit slowly but some have prompted production to begin once more. The rigs were shut down because it was thought once depleted, a reserve was gone but as with many other things we knew for sure, we are being educated once more.

Someone once said :"We can say one thing for sure, the earth is flat. If you disagree with me then why don't we see people sailing around it?" I guess we'll always have this kind of thinking but thats what makes the undiscovered really worth going after. The "They said it couldn't be done factor." Of course more oft than not someone's personal politics are at the root of such statements. These, thankfully nearly always fail the test of time as truth is finally reluctantly accepted evetually.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
If this is the case, then all of the planet in our solar system as well as the sun should have signifigant amount of hydrocrabons on them. We have yet to come across evidence for high concentrations of hydrocarbons on most of the bodies in our solar system.


Again look at Saturn’s giant moon Titan it’s swimming in hydrocarbons and comet Hyakutake Astronomers observing the close approach of comet Hyakutake to the Earth have detected large quantities of saturated hydrocarbons. So this isn’t just a theory we know hydrocarbons are found on other planetary bodies, this is a fact. I doubt it was formed by the decomposition of plant life so it must be a property of space that forms these saturated hydrocarbons. It’s the only logical conclusion.


Titan

Comet Hyakutake



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Crikey there are some strange thoughts out there. This one about the origin of oil crops up regularly on internet forums, and always quotes Thomas Gold's theory of abiotic oil formation. It is always accompanied by a host of uninformed speculation and wild theories with no scientific back-up, as it is here. Usually I just flick to another web page but I thought I'd dive in and respond to this one just in case anyone still cares! Someone suggested "If you ask any geologist or biologist how oil is formed from organic material they won’t be able to tell you because they simply don’t know." This is just not true. I'm a petroleum geochemist (for the uninitiated, that basically means I analyse oil and gas, and correlate it back to where it comes from) and I can categorically state we have an excellent idea of where oil comes from. Oil does not = carbon. Oil = hydrogen + carbon = hydrocarbons. Thus the presence of carbon alone does not guarantee oil formation.

It is actually quite difficult to find oil, because there are special conditions required for its formation and preservation. These are the elements of the so-called "petroleum system". Firstly we need rocks that contain abundant hydrogen and carbon - so called "source rocks". Coal is rich in carbon but not particularly rich in hydrogen, so most coals source gas, and coal-sourced oils are rare. Most oil in fact comes from sediments deposited at the bottom of the sea, which contain relatively large volumes of plankton. If there are not enough of these dead plankton in the sediment, then there are not enough hydrocarbons to form oil. The "source rocks" must be buried to temperatures of about 250-300°F to achieve oil generation. This corresponds to depths of anything from 5000 ft to 30000 ft depending on temperature gradient and water depth - shallow in hot onshore basins like Indonesia, deep in cold deep water basins like the Gulf of Mexico. Less than this and no oil is formed. Higher than this and oil cracks to gas. This limit to the thermodynamic stability of oil is one of the main reasons that mantle-sourced oil is nonsense. The temperature in the mantle is thousands of degrees (think lava!), whereas oil rapidly breaks down to gas above about 350°F. Apart from good source rocks there are three or four other requirements for a successful petroleum system. Oil is not found in its source rock but migrates to shallower levels due to buoyancy (it floats on water). To be able to extract the oil at commercial rates we need to find "traps" formed where the rocks form an inverted pudding basin-like structure. These traps must consist of a coarse grained reservoir rock (e.g. sandstone) overlain by a fine grained sealing rock (e.g. shale). The timing of the structuration needs to be just right. There is no use having great source rocks expelling loads of oil if there are no traps to catch it, and it all just leaks to the surface. If the source rock gets buried to higher temperatures then it will form loads of gas which will follow the oil and may displace it (because gas floats on oil), so again, no oil there! Because traps are leaky, they will eventually empty themselves, so we need to find this oil in a relatively narrow time interval of a few tens to a couple of hundred million years. Sounds easy, but the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and many basins are either too old to have preserved their generated petroleum, or too young to have formed any in the first place.

So, why am I so sure that oil is formed from micro-organisms buried in sediments? Well firstly, because all organic life forms leave tell-tale traces of themselves in the form of complex chemicals - a bit like DNA. These "biomarker" compounds are found in both source rocks and oils. The patterns they produce can be quite distinctive of a particular source, and can be matched with oil from that source rock. Secondly there is evidence from isotopes of carbon and hydrogen. Isotopes are atoms of an element containing different numbers of neutrons. Most carbon is carbon-12, with 6 neutrons and 6 protons. We have all heard of carbon-14 dating. This is a radioactive form of carbon with two extra protons. Because we know very precisely the speed at which carbon-14 disintegrates, and the initial ratio of 14C/12C in living organisms, the ratio of 14C/12C is a good indication of the age of a dead organic sample (e.g. bone, wood etc). Well there is another isotope of carbon with one extra proton called carbon-13. By determining the ratio of 12C/13C in an organic substance we have another method of fingerprinting that substance. This ratio does not change with time as carbon-13 is "stable" i.e. not radioactive. 12C/13C ratios can be measured either on the whole oil, or its individual constituents. These measurements produce a fingerprint that can also be matched between oils and source rocks, and are quite distinctive for different source rocks. The same goes for ratios of hydrogen isotopes. Hydrogen with an extra proton is called deuterium. Deuterium/hydrogen ratios can also be used as fingerprints for hydrocarbons. This is a more convincing piece of evidence of the biogenic source of petroleum, as biomarkers could potentially be picked up from the rocks through which they migrate (though they are usually not). My last piece of evidence is the empirical one, that oil is found where we expect to find it, and not where we don't expect to find it. If abiogenic petroleum were a reality, we would find it coming out of the ground (as seeps) in areas where we don't expect to find it, e.g. around volcanoes or kimberlite pipes (where diamonds are found), which have direct access to the mantle.

My last point is an economic one. The commercial success rate of finding hydrocarbons in Australia is only 6%. I.e. we have to drill about 17 wells at $5-20M a pop before finding any hydrocarbon deposits big enough to produce. That includes gas as well as oil, so the success rate of finding oil (which is much more easily Why do you think think we would be wasting all that shareholder value if abiogenic petroleum was as abundant as some people say?

Professor Bob



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I'm qualified geologist, and I personally I think this theory is a load of rubbish. Their are a few points which I would like to make

Firstly this guy is obviously intelligent, but he is a Prof of Astrophysics, not of geology, by the looks of it he has no formal training in geology, if it was a prof of geology saying it then maybe I would take notice

Secondly theirs is this oppinion of oil reservoirs re-charging and oil being in places were their are no fossil horizons. It has to be realised that oil migrates and were you actually extract the oil is NOT were it was formed. It is simply their as the oil has been trapped by a seal, if this was not their it would simply escape to the surface.

This is why the oil is foind in relation to large scale geological structures such as basins, as these contain traps, such as faults, anti-clines etc. The oil we see now is the result of a complicated interplay of timing of diffrent events that all need to occur in exactly the right order and the right time to get the oil.

As for fossils, then what hasn't been realised is fossils we actually see are inordantly biased. In normal situations fossils are not preserved. For example most fossils we see are marine, as fossils on land tend not to undergo the right condtions to be preserved. Many geologists and paleontologists are very carefull in the use of fossils as the fossil record is so biased, but the problem is that it is very difficult to estimate how biased it is, so I think the statment

"The geographical patterns that emerge from the oil fields, whether in the Middle East or Indonesia, all exhibit a correspondence to deep-Earth geological structure. This is in stark contrast to the haphazard deposition we find with surface life, and its subsequent fossils, which have never exhibited such patterns"

Is very unreliable.

This entire theory seem to far fetched for myself. Yes there is a lack of understanding regarding exactly how oil is formed, however once you get into the world of academia you quickly realise that hardly anything in Geology is completely understood, most of it is a highly educated guess. Plate Tectonics is a prime example, it doesn't explain everything but most of the time it does. Yes equally you could get into a debate saying that this theory might be the new theory which everybody criticises "like plate tectonics was" and it may be correct, but the evidence we have support that organic fossil origin of oil from decaying matter turning into sapronol etc etc



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I didnt read this whole thread so if Im repeating someone my bad.

You said, or the article you posted said, oil is being found below fossils, couldnt the oil have slowly drained down over time? Im sure the rock is pretty solid down there, but over time couldnt earthquakes or other siesmic activity cause oil to slowly move deeper into the earth?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join