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: 11
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I stopped trying to read the OP article when it mentioned that no trace of fossils have ever been found in oil. Such a statement indicates that the author of it didn't bother to do an ounce of research anywhere excepting where they thought it might help their argument. It is not accurate, and it is not trustworthy.

In reality, fossils are a major indicator of new oil deposits and paleontology is a vital tool used for the discovery of these new deposits. Geologists get most of the credit, but they are only one aspect of a team effort of researchers from various disciplines. The flipside to Geologists, are Paleontologists - specifically Micropaleontologists. Those are the people who look for microscopic fossils of animal, bacterial, and plant material (cibicides robertsonianus, for example) in test well samples. By cataloging and identifying what sorts of organisms were in that location, in that strata layer, it's possible to build a ecological profile of the ancient environment at various depths & times and help find areas which were more conducive to oil production.

Further, the article mentions that oil is being extracted from wells at depths up to 14km below the surface. This is wrong. The deepest anyone has drilled into the crust was (IIRC) the Russian Kola Superdeep Bore Hole that only extends down about 12.25km, and the project had to be stopped due to pressures and temperatures expected to exceed the equipment tolerances. It may be possible to drill for oil at distances over 12km using directional drilling techniques (drilling horizontally, not down). Yet IIRC, to date not even directional drilling techniques have exceeded the 10~11 kilometer mark.

I understand the OP didn't post the article because it was factually accurate or complete. He posted it because he thought it was interested. Personally, I didn't find it particularly interesting. It more resembles a mess of accusations which are based on "common knowledge" assumptions, incomplete research, and a bad case of the "creation scientific method" wherein you don't actually have to verify your model is correct... you just try to poke holes in theories the author misunderstood or which contain some unexplained fragment - make confident assertions - and the propose your model as the only other possible alternative.

What I find more interesting, personally, is the work Craig Venter is doing building custom organisms which ingest CO2 and expel Octane as waste.


Alaska oil 200 year supply. ~ endisnighe


Got any context for that statement? 200 year supply by what projected consumption rate? American only? Global consumption? Is it the projected figure based on current consumption rates, or does it factor in the growing emergence of industrialized nations? What is the cost per barrel for extraction & refinement vs. purchasing from foreign sources? Just saying there's a "200 year supply" in Alaska doesn't tell you much. There's enough supply to last several million years in Alaska... provided I'm the only one who gets to use it.


Originally posted by AmagnonContinue 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.


Mechanism? Model? How well does that model fit with what we know of planetary composition, the magnetic field, and the suspected collision between our planet and the planet Theia 4.5 billion years ago vis-a-vis the GIH?


The whole idea that the center of the earth is some molten lava is nonsense.


You're right, it is. That's because nobody proposes that the center of the Earth is liquid. Based on the data we have, the center of the Earth appears to be a solid mass of Iron and traces of Nickel. That's the inner core. The outer core, however, is liquid... as is the mantel.


The earth is just like the sun - it is a nuclear reactor - and its making EVERYTHING - not just oil.


Again... model? Mechanism? What sustains the fusion reaction, and why hasn't it exhausted it's fuel supply yet? How does your proposition account for the anomalies in seismic readings which indicate a solid core? You say the Earth's core is just like the sun... but what you propose violates everything we know about stars and astrophysics if taken literally at face value.

Also... if that's the process which produces oil, and it's supposedly the same as the sun, then why do we see no traces of anything indicating such via solar spectroscopy?


If you remove all the tectonic plates, and fit them together - you create a miniature world


No. If you remove the tectonic plates and fit them together... you have the same world you took apart. You're confusing continents with tectonic plates. That's like saying peninsulas aren't the same as continents.


that was the world as it was millions of years ago - a fraction of its current size.


Growing Earth theory? Answer me, has anyone ever actually proposed a working model of how excess mass is created to power the crustal expansion? Any explanation yet as to the phenomena of subduction (denial doesn't count)? Has anyone even bothered attempting to do the calculations on how such a phenomena would affect the rate of lunar recession - then dared to compare it to actual measurements and data?


All the ocean floors keep expanding - the world is growing, and along with that - comes oil.


My advice... go back to science class. If you're going to criticize a theory, then for god's sake at LEAST understand what it is your criticizing. Science is about falsification, and you cannot falsify a theory you don't understand. You might as well be arguing that your car's horse power is determined by how many very tiny miniature horses running on treadmills fit inside the engine block... and it wouldn't start because the little horses in the engine are tired and stiff from the cold. That's seriously what it sounds like when you make such statements as you did.

Take a physics and chemistry class while you're at it.




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Well said Lasheic! Damn-well said


I'd flag you if I could, but as it is, you get a star - and my respect, as well
as the respect of many others who have contributed in a thoughtful and intelligent way in the face of sheer, unadulterated, ignorance


[edit on 18-11-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DOADOA
 


read what you qouted and read the link you sent me.

The quote is from the link. Your point?

And you still haven't answered my earlier question.

Though now I've read the CV you so helpfully provided, I must say I'm no longer interested in your answer.

[edit on 18/11/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle
Well said Lasheic! Damn-well said


I'd flag you if I could, but as it is, you get a star - and my respect, as well
as the respect of many others who have contributed in a thoughtful and intelligent way in the face of sheer, unadulterated, ignorance


[edit on 18-11-2009 by mckyle]


Their you go baeshing peeple for thinkin what they want rather than going out and fiending some "book" to justify it just because it has a few "facts" or "data" in it. And way to kip maiking fun of peeple for not beeing able to spell right and kalling us ignorance. Oil isn't going to just be heire forever its been scientificaly shown by the commie pinkos that soon we will have so much we can start converting other things to gasoline like blenders and whatnot. Here's some guys who have there heds on right:

Gas Blender



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Thanks for your help here, I was ready to let go as the effort wasn't worth it.
Stars for you.

And, yes, of course we must give credit to micropaleontologists in the determnination of oil origins and composition.
Geologist are just here to make the first studies, find the source rock, the reservoirs etc...

Again, it shows some of you that science works in community.

Thanks for all of you who helped here.


(sorry, this morning my head is elsewhere and my english sucks)



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Now, here is a thread that all of the "Experts" should go to and post all their attacks. Hypocrisy should be the first thing taught to "Scientists"

Suppression of alternative theories.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
This subject is not a new one and is pretty much an open secret in the oil and gas industry.
The official explanation is 'It's replenishing the oil fields from deeper than we know about / or can drill down to'.
So it could either be a deeper Mega reservoir in certain areas of the earth. OR it could indeed be a 'sea' of giaias life-blood type stuff...



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WatchRider
This subject is not a new one and is pretty much an open secret in the oil and gas industry.


Oh really?
Please do tell more. I'd like to know because the people I know in the oil and gas industry aren't on the same page.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solenki

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by endisnighe
I have done extensive research on this topic.




J'ai l'impression que depuis quelques temps cela devient une tendance et une sorte de "mode" que de vouloir trouver des complots partout où il peut en exister et plus particulièrement dans les faits scientifiques. Comme s'il fallait trouver le moyen de prouver que toute les recherches effectuées ces 100 dernières années n'étaient que pour mentir à la population.
C'est d'autant plus triste quand cela touche à des domaines que l'on pratique, j'ai moi même vu et effectué des analyses sur des systèmes pétroliers, c'est pour cela que toutes ces fausses informations m'énervent au plus au point.

Well Lemon.Freshesh you are damn right


Cher ami, en effet tu a raison les gens vont parfois trop loin cependant ils y a certains domaines scientifiques comme par exemple la recherche contre le cancer qui ont été par le passé ralentit volontairement... On ne peu pas nier que certains groupes dans l'élites on des plans derriere la tête... Est ce une raison pour remettre 100 ou 200 ans de découvertes? non bien entendu cependant je pense qu il est temps de faire du ménage dans certains domaines comme la physique.
Il n y a pas qu une seule voie scientifique il y en a a plusieurs mais pour les débloquer il faut faire le ménage pour pouvoir avancer sereinement.
Je ne pense pas que la géologie en fasse partie même si je suis désolé de te choquer en te disant que la terre est creuse du moins pas la planete en elle meme mais son noyau.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


Seriously..

You've never heard of a double bluff?!

Put out information that convinces the masses that you're sincere...a bit like a lie mixed with truth...adds credibility.

I'm amazed you haven't considered the possibility..considering how clever and devious the 'governors' are.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Exeas
 


Don't hold your breath for an answer either mate!

It's a simple enough explanation, fairly eloquent in fact, for the presence of organic molecules in oil...but then again, it really goes to show that the skeptics have little real taste for facts or hypothesis that derail their convictions.

Intellectual cowardice in actuality.

They're usually the first to scream Occam's razor! Occam's razor! i.e. the simplest explanation is usually correct, but when the principle works against them, no one mentions it...how strange..not.



[edit on 18/11/2009 by spikey]

[edit on 18/11/2009 by spikey]

[edit on 18/11/2009 by spikey]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wanderingwaldo


Their you go baeshing peeple for thinkin what they want rather than going out and fiending some "book" to justify it just because it has a few "facts" or "data" in it.


I totally agree. Why let "facts or data" get in the way of a good story?

You'll go far on ATS!



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey

You've never heard of a double bluff?!


I think you mean a 'double blind'.

By accusing myself and a handful of others here who have fought against an overwhelming tide of ignorance, you're clearly showing that the use of the "government" bogey man as a convenient tool is a cynical one indeed!

How so? Well the government - at least several western governments are the ones trying to perpetuate the myth of abundant oil reserves. However, as this doesn't suit the angle of attack by the Oil Cornucopians on this thread, you choose instead to say we are the one's who are being sucked into the conspiracy, whilst your good old pal, the government, is telling the truth.

So I'm assuming there are one of two possibilities with such a hypocritical and cynical stance: either some ATS'ers have had a change of heart about our government, or you are all totally ignorant of the considerable complexity that makes up the Peak Oil issue.

Hmmm. I wonder which one it could be??



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
some countries believe that oil is a sort of blood that the earth produces. i believe i read that in a Joseph p Farell book.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by polar
 


If oil is replenishing itself then it sure doesn't look like that from the output of the present oil deposits nor from the rate of new oil deposit discoveries. Where is all this renewable oil at? and if it renews itself at what rate? If it replenished itself at the same rate we consume it oil deposit output would remain steady, but it is declining worldwide.

-rrr



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by polar
 


I am actually very glad that this thread was posted, Because it turns the conspiracy theory on its head. We used to think that "peak oil" was a conspiracy theory invented by nuts. And slowly the data started to come in from independent (sometimes even enemies) countries and regimes indicating that there is a global slowdown in the rate of discovery and the rate of production has already peaked for a large number of oil fields.

Now comes a new conspiracy theory to be considered: That oil may not run out after all, that it is produced somehow at a rate that wishfully will match the rate we plan to consume oil at, say in 30 years. And that it is produced... somewhere.... where we can't reach yet.....

Now, let's entertain the idea that oil is produced at a hundred miles below the earth surface, or some other depth we haven't reached yet....

We set up drills, and we finally reach the deposits, and then start the pumps that have to lift the oil for hundreds of miles.

As the pump runs, we put some oil in the pump to power it.


Guess what? The pump cannot extract oil at a fast enough rate to power itself!!!!

If only we could also move down there inside the oil deposit so that we can use it at that depth.

Any "free" oil at a deep enough level is useless because of this problem, assuming it EVEN EXISTED.

Now anybody who believes oil is not running out can be safely called a conspiracy nut, and those who believe in peak oil are safely in the mainstream


Funny how it works, some people find an idea appealing, not because it is good or sound, but because it is unpopular.

You know what else is unpopular? Hitler!

It is like being friendly to the school looser, it is admirable, but in this case, how mistaken!

-rrr



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Growing Earth theory? Answer me, has anyone ever actually proposed a working model of how excess mass is created to power the crustal expansion?

Not trying to get into a heated arguement here but tons and tons of debree come from space every year Xbillions of years I cant remember how much, when I read the article, but the earth is getting bigger and the moon is getting farther away

Found the answer 40 tons of space debree land on earth every day

40 tons X 365 X 4.75 billion years= a lot someone else add it up for me remember im un-educated and only gradiated the 3rd grade

I wonder if the moon will stop getting further and start coming back towards the earth
I bet that would start some tectonic plates to moving a little more

Other than that I think you hit the nail on the head


[edit on 18-11-2009 by StumpDrummer]

[edit on 18-11-2009 by StumpDrummer]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


Well ricky you had me up til the mention of Hitler.
Godwin's Law proves itself again.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely

Originally posted by jsmappy
Ever since a child, I have never bought the total and complete B.S. that Oil is a fossil fuel. Is this the same science that says the Earth is Billions of years old? If you call that science then I guess you will believe what you want to believe.
The fact that we have huge reserves of centralized pools of oil and that they were formed by the decomposition of Fred Flinstones garden and dead pets. That is a lot of dead animals and Ferns in one place. Did the animals all gather in the same location before they died. That is a hell of a lot of Ferns!
I don't buy it for a minute. It is as rediculous as the Earth is Billions of yrs old. Next thing your going to tell me is we can change the Earths climate by switching light bulbs!!!
All you 'science experts' seem to get proved wrong over & over but have this attitude that "This is what I was taught and so it is fact". Keep believing that oil comes from dead animals & plants. Change your light bulbs, then get out of our way. This is a site full of people who think outside of the box. Outside of the Fossil Fuel Myth Box.


I think you forgot to post the data that supports your arguments here...


Hi DisappearCompletely


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for our friend to try and support his bizarre diatribe. It's a great example of what is referred to as:


invincible ignorance-- the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's position in the face of contradictory facts. Statements like "I really don't care what the experts say; no one is going to convince me that I'm wrong"; "nothing you say is going to change my mind"; "yeah, okay, whatever!" are examples of this fallacy.

Philosophical Society

I found the post quite amusing actually.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   


The above talk is well above the scope of the thread, as well as apparently the comprehension of many who posted in it. I have to believe this is problem in choice and worldview, rather than incapability or deficiency. I understand that those whom I'm referencing will have already closed their minds to deeper understandings and likely will not watch it out of a distrust of knowledge and reason, insulating themselves away from anything which may expand their understanding, enrich their context, and potentially threaten to dislodge their precious and vital misconceptions.

It needs to be posted.

reply to post by StumpDrummer
 




Not trying to get into a heated arguement here but tons and tons of debree come from space every year Xbillions of years I cant remember how much, when I read the article, but the earth is getting bigger and the moon is getting farther away


No need for an argument. You're well on the right track with your points. All I'll really be doing is trying to provide a bit more context.

You're absolutely right about accretion adding to the Earth's mass. The Earth is still picking up mass from the solar system in the form of dust, micrometeorites, and the occasional large bolide. We're also gaining small amounts of mass in the form of charged particles from the sun. I've seen estimates of mass accretion for the Earth vary between 10 million kg to 1 billion kg per year.

However, the Earth is also loosing mass in the form of lighter elements like hydrogen in the upper atmosphere escaping into space at a rate of somewhere around 2kg per second - roughly 50 million kg annually. Additionally, the Earth looses mass via other processes such as radioactive decay and recently several thousand kg worth of space craft a certain species has shot off towards other planets.

Though it can vary between a net loss and net gain, over long periods of time the Earth does accumulate more mass than it looses. The amounts wouldn't be anywhere near enough to account for the additional mass necessary for the Expanding Earth model though. Even were it enough, though, the EEH suggests that the mass is being generated - INSIDE - the Earth. Annual matter accretion on the surface would not account for the formation of divergent boundaries like the mid-Atlantic ridge, or subduction zones at convergent boundaries - like the Indo-Australian plate sliding under the Eurasian plate.


As for the moon, you're right in that it's moving farther away from us. At a rate of about 3.5 cm per yer I think. Though it's orbit isn't noticeably affected by the Earth's net gain/loss of matter. It recedes due to the gravitational pull it has on the Earth which deforms the shape of the planet slightly, creating the tidal bulge. Since the Earth rotates faster that the moon can orbit, and because the oceans are deformed greater than crustal/mantel by the Moon's gravity - what results is an effect called tidal braking wherein the tides on Earth lead the moon by several degrees as the oceans are pulled along by the surface. The friction of the ocean mass against the crust as it's pulled slows the rotation of the Earth slightly, as well as concentrates a slightly greater mass towards the direction of the Moon - increasing their gravitational attraction. This slows the moon's orbit, causing it to ascend to a higher orbit.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Lasheic]

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Lasheic]



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join