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 not of fossil origin and is inexhaustible

page: 10
87
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
I have yet come across a forum (specially recently) that people showed respect for one another and from bottom of their heart just wanted to debate rather then attack. It's a shame ...


*chokes on his coffee*

Yes it is a shame when you attack people's education credentials using the F word!

My F@%$ed education taught me one useful word: hypocrite.




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


Here we go again....Lord have mercy!!

1 Did not say you were attacking me!!!!!
2 Looked like to me and others obviously that your were attacking someone else about being un-educated.
3 Not worth my time explaining this to you anymore
4 Nuff said,... to you anyways
5 Maybe not...for an educated person you sure arnt very bright
or just cant seem to understand what I'm posting
6 Ok now I'm through "attacking" you


Peeps Njoyed the post and reading some of the more intelligent replies to it!!!!!



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Back on Topic: Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) synthesis could be worth investigating for those who are interested.



...instead of Google, use Google Scholar!

[edit on 17-11-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solenki

I could give you TONS of publication and research proving this fact. Just google it...
You can't imagine how upset I was in reading this


Continue to be upset then, oil is created continuously. There is evidence for decaying biomass, but most of the oil is created deep in the earth.

The whole idea that the center of the earth is some molten lava is nonsense. The earth is just like the sun - it is a nuclear reactor - and its making EVERYTHING - not just oil.

If you remove all the tectonic plates, and fit them together - you create a miniature world - that was the world as it was millions of years ago - a fraction of its current size. All the ocean floors keep expanding - the world is growing, and along with that - comes oil.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Exactly right. The belief that oil comes from compressed living organisms and from km's below the earths surface is something that we are taught to believe just like evolution which still struggles to be credible.

If people actually thought, really questioned it in their minds, they'd see the folly in it. To produce the oil we have used so far, we'd have needed living organisms 2000x more than have existed thru all time to ate to produce it!

But, where does it come from? Lets just hope the alien believers don't start suggesting it was put here by beings from outer space



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Evidence to back up that statement please!

second line

[edit on 023030p://f53Tuesday by Selahobed]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon


Continue to be upset then, oil is created continuously. There is evidence for decaying biomass, but most of the oil is created deep in the earth.

The whole idea that the center of the earth is some molten lava is nonsense. The earth is just like the sun - it is a nuclear reactor - and its making EVERYTHING - not just oil.

If you remove all the tectonic plates, and fit them together - you create a miniature world - that was the world as it was millions of years ago - a fraction of its current size. All the ocean floors keep expanding - the world is growing, and along with that - comes oil.



Righto, that sounds like bunk to me, so could you please provide some links that 'verify' your claims?

Why do you say this?
Where did you get your information from?
Do you actually understand?

[edit on 17-11-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
I just find it amazing when a gathering of minds seeking to question the reality of presented knowledge,
gathered to share new ideas and possibilities,
supposedly with intelligence and open minds,
gathered, at a meeting place such as this.....embrace and take up positions in a verbal warfare sharing insults from their most holy towers.
The passion is only tempered by the arrogance,
and the established,
is quickly held up as proof,
ending the need for further questions,
and completing the discovery of new knowledge.





Amen to that!

Im not sure I have much to add to this debate, but the kneejerk reactions some ATS users are displaying towards the OP's post made me want to contribute.

Seems like a lot of peeps on here can't deal with their world view being rocked, perhaps would be better off just sticking with Fox news?

Scoffers, read the article in the link.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Thomas Gold - en.wikipedia.org... -
proposed the concept of abiotic oil years ago, based on the principal that

A) The earth was formed from cometary debris, and
B) That comets are composed, IN PART of hydrocarbons

oil and gas are therefore 'baked out' of the stuff the planets made of, and where organic matter is buried and soaked in oil, becomes coal.

NO this does not mean it is an inexhaustible resource, but it would be more plentiful than is suggested by the 'industry'.
As for evidence, well, this is only an HYPOTHESIS, however, the fossil nature of these fuels has never been proved beyond doubt, where is the conclusive evidence for that theory?

As has been stated by others here, the phenomena of the empty oil well that subsequently begins to refill is well documented

goldismoney.info...

Much the same with the global warming/co2 argument, and the green energy scam. (Sorry, but it IS).
One big methane release from the sea bed, or one super volcano (Yellowstone?) eruption, can put more greenhouse gases into the environment than years of petrol burning - a big forest fire can produce as much CO2 as a years motoring.

'Last week's fires in southern California broke out after the paper was written but Wiedinmyer applied the new computer model to analyze their emissions. Her preliminary estimates indicate that the fires emitted 7.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in just the one-week period of October 19-26, the equivalent of about 25 percent of the average monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning throughout California'.

www.scientificblogging.com...

Ok, you who need to can call me names now, if it will make you feel more secure.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
The whole idea that the center of the earth is some molten lava is nonsense. The earth is just like the sun - it is a nuclear reactor - and its making EVERYTHING - not just oil.


So you are saying a few things simultaneously:

a) Sun is a nuclear reactor. Well it is, but it's a fusion reactor -- are you saying that there is fusion going on inside Earth?


b) Nuclear reactors are capable of making "everything". Do you have a faintest, slightest idea about what nuclear reactors are? And what they produce?

c) We all should be dead from being exposed to radioactive waste ejected from volcanoes, according to your "theory".


In the spirit of this board's motto, "Deny Ignorance", I hereby deny yours, along with whatever silly motions it brings here.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I have nothing to cry and run to my "mama" about, if I did, I will, I love my mama!
Being defensive only shows your insecurity, I love how you pick certain part of my statement rather what my entire statement says.. just so you can argue your point (if there is any)


Aside that I rest my case, saying what I had to say, if you don't understand it... then you just won't, so go back to your peers and let them tell you how to think and live your life... they know best for you!


OP, thank you for the post, something to consider while being able to think outside of the box.



[edit on 17-11-2009 by freighttrain]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
Back on Topic: Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) synthesis could be worth investigating for those who are interested.



...instead of Google, use Google Scholar!

[edit on 17-11-2009 by aorAki]


In a (seemingly) vain attempt to steer this back on topic, this post mentioned something that might aid understanding (or obfuscate
).



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
Being defensive only shows your insecurity


Me being defensive? Au contraire, mon ami! You used an obscene word to convey your disdain for education and science. Basically, you have a gut feeling that oil is magically produced in infinite quantities, inorganically, that comes before science which is a fabrication of an evil secret government.

I don't have to defend myself against such silliness, however it's rather easy to make fun of same.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by aorAki
Back on Topic: Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) synthesis could be worth investigating for those who are interested.



...instead of Google, use Google Scholar!

[edit on 17-11-2009 by aorAki]


In a (seemingly) vain attempt to steer this back on topic, this post mentioned something that might aid understanding (or obfuscate
).


Given the large amount of sulfur in typical oil, this is a non-starter:

cat.inist.fr...


This paper presents some insight into the role of sulfur, a well-known Fischer-Tropsch (FT) catalyst poison, regarding the selectivity of ethylene:ethane and C2-product yield in a commercial, Fe-based, high-temperature, 2-phase FT process. It is well known that in these kind of processes, the level of sulfur allowed in the feed gas is normally very low (ppb range) and aggressively kept low due to the poisoning effects. The practice generally is to get sulfur levels down as close as possible to zero. The poisoning effects are well studied in research work and significant information exists in that regard. It is, e.g. known that the poisoning action of sulfur would typically increase selectivity towards more hydrogenated ethane relative to ethylene (the more attractive product). At high enough levels it would kill catalyst activity completely.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Good, thanks for that.

I just noticed that there are a few articles around (from e.g. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta/ Earth and Planetary Science Letters) regarding Abiotic formation of hydrocarbons and I'm not disputing this....

You are correct that it is not oil (as we understand 'Oil') and that there are differences between the chains of hydrocarbons so that just because there is Abiotic formation of hydrocarbons does not, necessarily, lead to abiotic formation of oil.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


What about all the sulfur based antibiotics...Im just asking?

Do you think this is why we have a higher than normal concentrations of antibiotics in drinking water?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
This is hopeless.
If you want to post your wisdom please atleast do some research and try to understand what you are trying to say.
you can find a conspiracy just about anywhere
Im outa here
Good luck trying to bring sanity to this one



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

Originally posted by Solenki

I could give you TONS of publication and research proving this fact. Just google it...
You can't imagine how upset I was in reading this


Continue to be upset then, oil is created continuously.


You provide us with evidence - not crackpot websites - but actual research done by recgonised geologists out in the field, and you'll have my attention.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
If I may step in between the name calling and flaming here...

Even if oil is continuously created by the earth (and I'm sure not going to take Jerome Corsi's word on that) it's still a dirty fuel that damages the earth and the air.
And apparently the earth doesn't produce it as fast as civilization burns it up.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DOADOA
i didn't say petroleum alternative, i didn't say bio-diesel, i did not say alcohol. i did not say synthetic fuel, i don't want cooking oil, i don't want propane gas. i said to replicate petroleum as if they were sucked out of the ground. not viable? why not? it's making billionaires. do you understand?


Here. Let me make it easier for you. Apparently, providing a link to all the information you ever wanted to know about synthetic petroleum production and usage was too difficult for you. I will try this:

Oil is made out of an element known as carbon just like coal, graphite, and diamonds. Synthetic fuel is also made out of carbon. You burn either of them to produce energy.

Crude oil is useless until it is refined. What would be the purpose of synthetically creating a substance that is useless? There is none that is why we try to produce synthetic substances that can be burned just like gasoline. Those synthetic fuels are made out of the same material as crude oil - carbon biomass or coal (made of carbon). The synthetic fuels I referred to are not cooking oil or propane. They are synthetic gasoline made out of the same ingredients/elements as traditional gasoline that has been refined from crude oil.

I understood your original question quite well. You made the mistake of not actually reading what I posted because you got upset.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solenki
Have you made any more research about it before posting ?
Have you read any book about organic matter, decomposition, formation of petroleum, oil window, gas window ?

Have you search about how Petroleum Geologist determine the composition, the nature and the source of oil ?
Have you at least speak with a Geologist (which I am) ?

(....)

Well I strongly suggest you to read more about it and to educate yourself...
Go to a lab, ask to see how it's done, and you will see by yourself




You are asking far far too much.
It is a lot easier to concoct wild-eyed nutjob conspiracy theories than to go to school and actually do some hard work.




top topics



 
87
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join