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.

 

petrol is not fossile

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
I state quite confidently that this is a sufficient evidence to claim that the pretended fossil origin of petrol is a huge lie, that helps a lot in keeping control on the production and the market.

just one more on the list

also, russian have come to rate of 50% success while looking for petrol with that abiotic origin in mind.
Compare that to the success rate of the american looking for fossil petrol you'll get another evidence.




About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil. By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s.


www.rense.com...




posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ::.mika.::
 


I don't get where this article says it isn't fossil. Maybe I just didn't read it right.
If its not fossil derived then what do you speculate it's created from?



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
and if this is true and they governments know this, we are getting robbed at the pumps. not that this would suprise me. interesting read



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Buddy I really don't get it.
It comes from the ground right?Oil?
That is true right?


en.wikipedia.org...
Geologists view crude oil and natural gas as the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials (i.e. kerogen) over geological time. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis, in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.

Today's oil formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae, which had settled to a sea or lake bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions (the remains of prehistoric terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tended to form coal).
Over geological time the organic matter mixed with mud, and was buried under heavy layers of sediment resulting in high levels of heat and pressure (known as diagenesis).

This caused the organic matter to chemically change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.





[edit: added EX tags and source link]
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   
fossile means it comes from biologic waste from the ground that are going down and through some chemical reactions and eventually get trapped in some places

then we find the source then we empty it, then we have to wait for thousands/millions of year that new fossil go down and fill the well

abiotic/abiogenic means it's coming from the core of the planet and goes up, continuously, it can go very high (like in the gulf countries) making it easily accessible, or it can get stuck much deeper.

the limit remains that when it is stuck deep, it is very costly to find it and pump it up.

The big lie is on the limitation of the reserve that the fossil theory implicate.

a fossil petrol well cannot jjust refill in just a few years, it is totally contradictory with the fossil claim of the formation of petrole.

petrol may well be the blood of the earth.




Today's oil formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae, which had settled to a sea or lake bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions (the remains of prehistoric terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tended to form coal).


-> this is lie indeed. another of those lies we learn at school as if it was undeniable truth



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Totalstranger
and if this is true and they governments know this, we are getting robbed at the pumps. not that this would suprise me. interesting read


yeah governments know this, isn't the bush/morgan family in the petrol business (as well) !?

then look at what russia did to find petrol during cold war



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   
well, iirc, abiotic fields do exist and carbon isotope composition clearly indicates abiotic origin.

been discussed a lot, i'll re-post a link, which got broken along the way:

Link to Archive

doesn't matter unless you have drilling gear and a private army to guard your wells, does it? as industries grow more capital intensive, access rapidly diminishes.

[edit on 2008.10.15 by Long Lance]



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I read the article. It's compelling. I flagged this thread as I think that this needs to be looked into.
Does anyone else have any information about this?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Coal certainly has a biological origin. Petroleum and other kerogen- derived materials seem to be derived from biological materials. There are many markers in the crude that derive from chlorophyll and other plant compounds. One can claim that all the compounds are formed through reactions of carbon with water in the presence of iron and other metals at high temperature and pressure but not all can be readily synthesized this way. Given the nature of earth's atmosphere before the advent of plants and the evidence that solar photons can chemically reduce carbon, it is most likely that the reduced carbon components in petroleum are mainly derived from photosynthetic processes.
Arguments can be more readily made for production of methane from abiotic processes, but the likely source of methane not associated with oil is probably due to greater heating of carbon containing sediments.
Thomas Gold's theories of the origin of petroleum are published and critical reviews have been written. The fact that there are some fields that have erratic production or whose bounds are not completely known does not necessarily mean that oil and gas are being made while we wait.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Recouper
I read the article. It's compelling. I flagged this thread as I think that this needs to be looked into.
Does anyone else have any information about this?


Feuding Over the Origins of Fossil Fuels

www.geotimes.org...


Both acknowledge the existence of abiogenic petroleum and say that it might be an untapped source, but that it is likely present in small quantities only. "The organic origin of petroleum is a theory based on field observations, laboratory experiments and basin models; it explains currently known economic occurrences of natural gas, crude oil and asphalt," Lewan says. "The inorganic origin remains a hypothesis; it has not been proven to be a significant contributor to currently known economic petroleum accumulations."



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I can't believe that this thread is still alive, all trying to prove that petroleum isn't a fossil fuel is, is clutching at straws trying to justify the huge dependance that we currently have on fossil fuels by giving oneself the illusion that they are renewable.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit85
I can't believe that this thread is still alive, all trying to prove that petroleum isn't a fossil fuel is, is clutching at straws trying to justify the huge dependance that we currently have on fossil fuels by giving oneself the illusion that they are renewable.


There is solid evidence. Look up the work of Thomas Gold. he is not a crank, but rather a respected scientist.

But this thread marks one of dozens that exist on this subject on ATS. I think the search function is disabled (or it was a couple days ago). But when it works again, search the forum archives. There are countless threads about abiotic coal and oil (one of which i authored).



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Just look at Titan, Saturn's Moon.

Wikipedia Titan

Titan has a rich deposit of hydrocarbons within its atmosphere.


The atmosphere is 98.4% nitrogen—the only dense, nitrogen-rich atmosphere in the solar system aside from the Earth's—with the remaining 1.6% composed of methane and trace amounts of other gases such as hydrocarbons


Yet according to most theories the planet should have a small percentage of methane, this has led scientists to believe there is a process where in methane is continuously being formed.



Energy from the Sun should have converted all traces of methane in Titan's atmosphere into hydrocarbons within 50 million years; a relatively short time compared to the age of the Solar System. This suggests that methane must be somehow replenished by a reservoir on or within Titan itself. That Titan's atmosphere contains over a thousand times more methane than carbon monoxide would appear to rule out significant contributions from cometary impacts, since comets are composed of more carbon monoxide than methane.


The planet is also covered with seas of hydrocarbons and has a water cycle similar to that seen on Earth with the water replaced by hydrocarbons.

If a planet with no large biomass let alone any plate tectonics can produce hydrocarbons through natural inorganic processes, then I think it ever so likely that this could be the case elsewhere. While it is unknown exactly how it produces hydrocarbons it does, and that means it could in theory happen here too.

I'm not dismissing the fossilised reserves of oil too, it is more than likely that they contribute the larger percentage of hydrocarbon reserves but I doubt that oil companies do not know about these other processes and they are more than likely keeping this information out of the public domain.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by -Klaus-]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by -Klaus-
 


There are many different types of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons on Titan won't be long-chain molecules capable of being cracked into petroleum.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Dont trust anything from rense.com

How can petroleum aka crude oil not be a fossil fuel?

Well, lets see what geolgists think shall we


Geologists view crude oil and natural gas as the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials (i.e. kerogen) over geological time.


Sure sounds like a fossil fuel to me



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


What geologists "think" means that it is "their best guess". Thomas Gold has plenty of laurels for you to give him consideration, even if geologists don't.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


In astrophysics... he's no geologist. Well, geologists have an actual scientific theory, and Gold had a hypothesis. When weighing the two up against each other, the one with supporting evidence is going to win every single time.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Abiotic means that is not produced from biota (plants).
wikipedia has an interesting article on abiotic oil...
en.wikipedia.org...

The theory is that there are pools of abiotic oil being moved around in the mantle, produced by pressure and heat reactions of minerals deep within the earth. The Russians have brought up some abiotic oil, but it was from very deep wells, and there is a significant cost disadvantage the deeper you drill.
Recent scientific observations of deep sea vents had caught abiotic liquids leaking, so there may well be processes going on within the earth that we know very little about.
The gas you are getting at the pump was fossills.
The reason lower states in US have so much oil, is due to the fact that during the permian, there was a long period of uplift and dropping sea levels (some 300+ foot), so vast areas of the southern US were shallow waters. As uplift, sediment deposition and eustatic drop continued, waters receded from the craton to the north, and produced new shallow waters. So we are left with hundreds of miles of fossill-rich sedimentary rock. This in turn was compacted, and a good few millions of years later we have oil and gas.
The sedimentary rocks were you find oil are very porous. It is not uncommon for emptied wells to slowly fill up again. Changing pressures within the rock strata can force new oils into old drill spaces. Indeed, there is a technique within the oil industry where they pump fluids around the edges of a drying well to force the oil in the porous spaces to move towards the the pump.
As for 'big oil' having some sort of cover up as regards abiotic oil, it is complete baloney. If the oil companies could get oil for cheaper, I'm damn sure they would. I personally know a number of prospectors that sell prospects to big oil companies for a lot of money. I mean a LOT of money.
Not just that, they use software to process seismic data, that also has data on who has drilled where, to what depth, and what was pulled out. Faults, folds, traps, strata and all the wells that are going into it are readily visible. We know who is pulling what out of where, and a lot of the oil comes from small independant oil companies, and prospecting companies backed by big oil (e.g. they fronted the money for the well).



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


In astrophysics... he's no geologist. Well, geologists have an actual scientific theory, and Gold had a hypothesis. When weighing the two up against each other, the one with supporting evidence is going to win every single time.


have you reviewed his evidence? There IS supporting evidence.

Geologists evidence is no more sound, with the only thing that could be deemed as supporting it being that they find fossils in the oil wells on occassion. As if THAT wouldn't happen in Gold's model.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


There might be some supporting evidence, but it's not as complete a picture as the current idea. When it becomes a viable alternative theory, it will be accepted more. The problem with the theory isn't that it's controversial, but that it's so nascent.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join