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: 9
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
lol, you took that right out of my mouth! Being educated... doesn't mean F*&^ck allх.


Oh yeah it does. It takes hundreds and thousands of highly educated people to discover, develop, tap and maintain our oil reserves. You see, uneducated folks, no matter how self-important they are, aren't capable of performing complex analyses of data and/or using advanced technology such as neutron logging. You can't build not only a nuclear reactor but a decent car without having sufficient (and in most cases quite advanced) education. Educated people are responsible for your condoms being reliable and your shampoo being non-toxic, not to mention the broadband access you are currently misusing to bash education.


the reason being is that most educated facilities


Facilities can't be "educated". They are, well, non-human entities.


such as (schools, colleges, universities) are all spoon fed by government (few elites in power) what to teach our kids...


I see, the government has a secret and vast source of knowledge in fields like astrophysics, or quantum electrodynamics, from which they selectively feed the scientific community and public knowledge? How swell.

I'm the kind of person who performed experiments to study moderated neutron spectra in water tanks, cosmic rays fluxes and principles of operation of integrated circuits. A large part of my knowledge comes from directly experiencing nature, and not government information feed. I have no idea where your knowledge comes from, but I bet it's a pitiful source.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by buddhasystem]




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by StumpDrummer
I kinda hate to say this, but I knew this back in the early 80's when a friend of my grandfather came over from a visit....I remember them saying there was a pocket of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that could run the United States for several hundred years...I think the media finally reported it a few years ago, 20 years later, as a "big find".Remember?


OK. Let's do the math on the figures you've provided:

Daily US Oil Consumption: 20 million Barrels/day (bpd)
X 365 X 200
--------------
TOTAL 1,460,000,000,000
OR 1.46 Trillion Barrels of oil!

That's one and a half trillion - more than the entire global reserve of all countries in just one field!!
Somehow, I don't think so


You might want to think about what you post before you post it in future!

[edit on 17-11-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


Im no scientist and I'm not agreeing with either side just curious, but couldn't the hydrocarbon or whatever traveling through the mantel or where ever it settles be the reason why it picks up organic matter. I mean if the organic matter is already there and the oil or petro. form on top of it would that not contaminate it? Just a Question



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Exeas
 


Exeas, it is possible, and perhaps probable that if the abiotic theory is proven to be a source of oil synthesis, that organic matter could be tainting some of the abiotic reserves.

However, I am not satisfied that the available data supports a strong possibility of abiogenic oil.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by StumpDrummer
I kinda hate to say this, but I knew this back in the early 80's when a friend of my grandfather came over from a visit....I remember them saying there was a pocket of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that could run the United States for several hundred years...I think the media finally reported it a few years ago, 20 years later, as a "big find".Remember?


OK. Let's do the math on the figures you've provided:

Daily US Oil Consumption: 20 million Barrels/day (bpd)
X 365 X 200
--------------
TOTAL 1,460,000,000,000
OR 1.46 Trillion Barrels of oil!

That's one and a half trillion more than the entire global reserve of all countries in just one field!!

You might want to think about what you post before you post it!


And that's assuming that demand in the US stays flat for the next 200 years. BTW, I've heard the same argument about the Canadian tar sands.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
quote]Originally posted by greysave
reply to post by Solenki
 


I would like to give you credit, but you never acknowledged the fact that there are hydrocarbons on other planets. Just because your a geologist doesn't explain this, unless you are saying there has to have been life on other planets.

ok, you'll have to go back to this post : www.abovetopsecret.com...

I never said that there was no hydrocarbons on other planets, I even stated the fact that hydrocarbons were present on space.
Of course, being a geologist, I'm specialized in earth mechanism and again ask an astrophysicist to explain this fact clearly. I'm sorry about that, I just can explain and discuss something I'm not completely familiar with.


Originally posted by kenochs
reply to post by mckyle
 


My apologies I didn't realize that English was not his primary language.
I take it all back!
KGE


No offense
I'll try to make an effort and to concentrate more.


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 even want to respond to you, this is just not worth it...sorry for you.
Just try to picture the number of algae present in the total volume of the ocean and the lake right now...add the biomass coming from the plants...of course it's not a pet cemetery that leads to the formation of all the oil in the middle east.



Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Solenki
 


You sound highly plausible..but 200 years + of being taught something, and looking for evidence that 'fits' the theory will convince most people of anything. Especially as i say, if it sounds and looks logical.

Would it not be equally logical to assume contamination of the 'natural' oil with decaying organic matter resulting in identifiable animal and plant molecules 'in the oil'?

Perfectly logical to me.


We weren't taught some "things" during 200 years, we discovered them, this make a HUGE difference.
Again, the scientific community as always been open, especially in Geology, let me remember you that the plate tectonic was accepted 50 years ago only, and was very discussed before being accpeted, it just that the fact proved it and the amelioration of technologies gave us more proofs.

Can't be a contamination of the natural oil by the organic matter, for numerous reason:
1. oil when analysed show a nearly 100% of animal and plant origin, we just trace the molecules.
2. we can drill into the source rock, which is a rock containing a high percentage of organic matter or total organic carbon, take a sample of this source rock and again after analysis the origin is 100% organic.
3.finally as a proof, you take a source rock, you heat it under a certain pressure and during a certain time, bingo you've got oil.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

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?

You mean it isn't just beyond your powers to perform a simple Google search, as andrewh7 suggested, it's beyond your powers even to read the facts when they are spoonfed to you in a link--a link you actually re-posted yourself?

From the Wikipedia entry linked in andrewh7's post and yours:


The Bergius process plants were the primary source of Nazi Germany's high-grade aviation gasoline...

Synthetic fuel grades included T.L. (jet) fuel, first quality aviation gasoline, aviation base gasoline, and gasoline - 'middle oil'; producer gas and diesel were synthesized for fuel as well.

If you have difficulty taking all that in, here's a diagram.

I notice you're proud of your lack of education. Why is that? What possible advantage do you gain from such wilful ignorance?

Educate me, please.


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



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Peak Oil



Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. The concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells.

en.wikipedia.org...

Well, IMO, the very concept of "Peak Oil" might be flawed. Just because individual Oil Fields do have a "Peak Oil", the same concept can not be applied to the whole planet considering we just don't know for sure how much untapped oil reserves are out there. Maybe "Peak oil extraction would be a better name?

Of course that there is a peak, there is the balance between production (extraction) and consumption, if the day comes that the consumption reaches the production and we don't have a clue where to find more oil, then we will really face a "Peak oil".

What if we start drilling at 20+ kms and find huge reserves of oil? be it biogenic or abiogenic. Again, this is IMHO. I don't even know if extracting petroleum from this great depths is even possible, or even if it is possible to find oil way down there.

I can understand mckyle position on relying just on certified available data. But IMO we can not let "available data" to blind us from getting new data and new studies.

Now, considering the possibility of abiogenic oil production, just because we don't have the means to prove it, or disprove it, it doesn't mean that it isn't possible. But jumping to conclusions like "Unlimited supply of oil" doesn't help much either.

What makes me question the scientific and educated views on this subject is that for some time now, the experts are constantly adding to the fear that we will run out of oil in the next 20 or so years. 20 years ago the oil would end just about now. I am not saying that there was a conspiracy to keep the oil prices high enough for good profit. I'm saying that back then the experts conducted real research to get that 20 years estimative, but they didn't have all the data we have today. And we, today, don't have all the data and knowlodge that we will have in 20 years also.

And even if there are enough oil reserves to supply the world for the next 200 years, we still have to take care of the planet for sure. We can't keep burning this thing like there is no tomorrow.

To sum up, IMO, we can't jump to conclusions based on just what is now known, a bit of "thinking outside of the box" is always a good thing to improve our knowlodge.

IDK jack's squat about geology, and I appreciate the informed people on the subject that added to this discussion, much valuable info.

Please bare with my english writing skills.


[edit on 17/11/2009 by MorfeuZ]

[edit on 17/11/2009 by MorfeuZ]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Solenki
 


You sound highly plausible..but 200 years + of being taught something, and looking for evidence that 'fits' the theory will convince most people of anything.


Why did you choose the 200 years as the horizon of reliable knowledge? A lot of modern mathematics, physics and astronomy is older than that.


Especially as i say, if it sounds and looks logical.


As opposed to accepting things that contradict experiment and are plain illogical?


Would it not be equally logical to assume contamination of the 'natural' oil with decaying organic matter resulting in identifiable animal and plant molecules 'in the oil'?


I invite you to measure sugar content in alcohol distilled from sugar cane. Or find protein in acetone produced from corn. Are you up to that? Hint: you won't find much if anything.

However:


According to generally accepted theory, petroleum is derived from ancient biomass. The theory was initially based on the isolation of molecules from petroleum that closely resemble known biomolecules


en.wikipedia.org...

Note resemblance of an ingredient in oil to Chlorophyll:



And you insisted such connection does not exist...


[edit on 17-11-2009 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by freighttrain
lol, you took that right out of my mouth! Being educated... doesn't mean F*&^ck allх.



I'm the kind of person who performed experiments to study moderated neutron spectra in water tanks, cosmic rays fluxes and principles of operation of integrated circuits. A large part of my knowledge comes from directly experiencing nature, and not government information feed. I have no idea where your knowledge comes from, but I bet it's a pitiful source.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by buddhasystem]


interesting, sounds super ultra complex and must require a gifted genius. well, when i was 16, i was a fuel exchange engineer. i regulate the flow of petro molecule into a canister depending upon the amount of paper, copper and silver that was traded in a 10x20 ft. housing unit. i work with a machine that create a vacuum in an underground facility, uptaking liquid used to fuel automobile. it was also require of me to fulfill human emotional needs and to keep windshields clean. if the windshields aren't clean, it may interfere with the operator of a motorized vehicle ability to visualize the incoming obstacle which could result in fatalities. in conclusion, i've learned that people with expensive car are very sensitive.

so, what have you learned from your study of moderated neutron spectra? do you know even know what color the neutrons are? can i eat it? how about cosmic ray fluxes, what can i do with these particles that come from unknown reaches of the universe? anything that i can't google o'great one?

[edit on 17-11-2009 by DOADOA]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by djquinn

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by StumpDrummer
I kinda hate to say this, but I knew this back in the early 80's when a friend of my grandfather came over from a visit....I remember them saying there was a pocket of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that could run the United States for several hundred years...I think the media finally reported it a few years ago, 20 years later, as a "big find".Remember?


OK. Let's do the math on the figures you've provided:

Daily US Oil Consumption: 20 million Barrels/day (bpd)
X 365 X 200
--------------
TOTAL 1,460,000,000,000
OR 1.46 Trillion Barrels of oil!

That's one and a half trillion more than the entire global reserve of all countries in just one field!!

You might want to think about what you post before you post it!


And that's assuming that demand in the US stays flat for the next 200 years. BTW, I've heard the same argument about the Canadian tar sands.


That's right!

And a hell of a lot of other factors that all count towards the bottom line: EROEI

The tar sands have a horrible EROEI - somewhere around 4:1 !
Now compare that to Texas Lite Sweet Crude in the golden age of say the 1930's, you're looking at EROEI of 100:1

No other energy comes close to that! And what have we done? we've overused and abused, and basically wasted so much of an amazing liquid form of 'dense' energy.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DOADOA

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by freighttrain
lol, you took that right out of my mouth! Being educated... doesn't mean F*&^ck allх.



I'm the kind of person who performed experiments to study moderated neutron spectra in water tanks, cosmic rays fluxes and principles of operation of integrated circuits. A large part of my knowledge comes from directly experiencing nature, and not government information feed. I have no idea where your knowledge comes from, but I bet it's a pitiful source.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by buddhasystem]


interesting, sounds super ultra complex and must require a gifted genius. well, when i was 16, i was a fuel exchange engineer. i regulate the flow of petro molecule into a canister depending upon the amount of paper, copper and silver that was traded in a 10x20 ft. housing unit. i work with a machine that create a vacuum in an underground facility, uptaking liquid used to fuel automobile. it was also require of me to fulfill human emotional needs and to keep windshield clean. if the windshield aren't clean, it may interfere with the operator of a motorized vehicle ability to visualize the incoming obstacle which could result in the fatalities. in conclusion, i've learned that people with expensive car are very sensitive.

so, what have you learned from your study of moderated neutron spectra? do you know even know what color the neutron are? can i eat it? how about cosmic ray fluxes, what can i do with these particles that come from unknown reaches of the universe? anything that i can't google o'great one?


Perhaps you should troll somewhere else!



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by StumpDrummer
I kinda hate to say this, but I knew this back in the early 80's when a friend of my grandfather came over from a visit....I remember them saying there was a pocket of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that could run the United States for several hundred years...I think the media finally reported it a few years ago, 20 years later, as a "big find".Remember?


OK. Let's do the math on the figures you've provided:

Daily US Oil Consumption: 20 million Barrels/day (bpd)
X 365 X 200
--------------
TOTAL 1,460,000,000,000
OR 1.46 Trillion Barrels of oil!

That's one and a half trillion more than the entire global reserve of all countries in just one field!!

You might want to think about what you post before you post it!


[edit on 17-11-2009 by StumpDrummer]
The educated feel so powerful sometimes...did you just use numbers in your math from recent oil consumption or did you just use the figures from the early 80's......You might want to think about what you post before you post it


[edit on 17-11-2009 by StumpDrummer]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Oil is simply a collection of biolological material. If the various components of oil can be found on Earth, in a non-oil state, then everyone should agree that it is possible for oil to also be formed by a process we don't yet understand.

The fossil theory I think is misunderstood. I would imagine that a huge pile of decomposing carbon based life would, over time, compact. This compaction would leave voids in the ground. If oil was indeed created by a different process than is currently accepted, wouldn't it make sense that the oil would eventually fill the voids left by the decomposing organic matter. This process would leave traces of the original organic matter, explaining why we find evidence of past organic life in oil.

As far as peak oil, if we were to ever move to alternative means of energy, finding that oil was renewable would be a great plus. Upon such a finding oil prices would plunge, making the oil industry not such a profitable venture. When the oil companies could no longer make massive profits, then the pressure to block other technologies would abate and we could see some real progress in coming up with clean renewable energy supplies. As long as oil prices remain high, there will be too much pressure to keep the status quo.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
I remember an article a while back, where some so called drained oil wells, back in the 50's and 60's, were capped off because they went dry, amazingly they popped and started to gush oil again in the late 70's.


If they were capped in the 50's and 60's, then in all likelihood, they were no longer economical to pump. The 1970's however saw two oil crisis that saw US pump prices skyrocket - thus making some of the old capped wells economically viable to start pumping again.

The same thing happened last year when oil went to $147 USD/bbl - wells that had been closed for decades were opened up again.

It's not a case of them being empty when they cap them - it's a case of the return not being worth the investment.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by freighttrain
lol, you took that right out of my mouth! Being educated... doesn't mean F*&^ck allх.


Oh yeah it does. It takes hundreds and thousands of highly educated people to discover, develop, tap and maintain our oil reserves. You see, uneducated folks, no matter how self-important they are, aren't capable of performing complex analyses of data and/or using advanced technology such as neutron logging. You can't build not only a nuclear reactor but a decent car without having sufficient (and in most cases quite advanced) education. Educated people are responsible for your condoms being reliable and your shampoo being non-toxic, not to mention the broadband access you are currently misusing to bash education.


the reason being is that most educated facilities


Facilities can't be "educated". They are, well, non-human entities.


such as (schools, colleges, universities) are all spoon fed by government (few elites in power) what to teach our kids...


I see, the government has a secret and vast source of knowledge in fields like astrophysics, or quantum electrodynamics, from which they selectively feed the scientific community and public knowledge? How swell.

I'm the kind of person who performed experiments to study moderated neutron spectra in water tanks, cosmic rays fluxes and principles of operation of integrated circuits. A large part of my knowledge comes from directly experiencing nature, and not government information feed. I have no idea where your knowledge comes from, but I bet it's a pitiful source.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by buddhasystem]


My "pitiful source" has been life experience and what I've learned from it... you're missing my point completely, we're NOT all natural born genius such as yourself, but I do think most people are "VERY capable" of being more then geniuses if they only had the "support/opportunity" from one another, rather getting a second hand treatment from some egoistic labeled sheeples (such as the few rashers in this forum as an example), don't you see... this is the reason our world is the way it is... this is why "we" as a whole can't grow up, because we constantly attack one another, because we're brainwashed to "compete" and not coexist.

Who said Darwin's theory is the way we should be living today... sure maybe that's how life started but it's time for a change... 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 ...

We are the product of our society and our society dictates how we "should" think and interact with one another. One of the primary "tools" to do this is educational, religious, military institutes which at a hierarchy being controlled and fed information through our secret government (the few that have been and trying to hold us on a tight leash).

If you can't understand that, then please pursuit your education and feel free to label yourself as they see fit, because isn't that really the point of life... brainwashed, become a number in society, work and die....



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

Originally posted by StumpDrummer

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by StumpDrummer
I kinda hate to say this, but I knew this back in the early 80's when a friend of my grandfather came over from a visit....I remember them saying there was a pocket of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that could run the United States for several hundred years...I think the media finally reported it a few years ago, 20 years later, as a "big find".Remember?


OK. Let's do the math on the figures you've provided:

Daily US Oil Consumption: 20 million Barrels/day (bpd)
X 365 X 200
--------------
TOTAL 1,460,000,000,000
OR 1.46 Trillion Barrels of oil!

That's one and a half trillion more than the entire global reserve of all countries in just one field!!

You might want to think about what you post before you post it!


[edit on 17-11-2009 by StumpDrummer]
The educated feel so powerful sometimes...did you just use numbers in your math from recent oil consumption or did you just use the figures from the early 80's......You might want to think about what you post before you post it


[edit on 17-11-2009 by StumpDrummer]


This is hilarious!
You're now attacking me because you realise that the figures that you so carefully and thoughtfully tossed in your post, make you look a tad silly!

I'm sorry, but I can't be held responsible for you spouting outrageous and totally unfounded data.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I didnt post any data ....just stated what was said at my grandfaters house while drinking coffee with some friends of his that worked in the oil business your the one who posted the figures ....that were wrong. Do the math with oil consumption figures from the 80's .

As far as attacking you
I did no such thing, your just feeling insecure from a reply, also you wouldnt survive the onslaught!!


Why do you pick on un-educated people instead of trying to help them...sponsor some kid trying to go through college with tuition money
and tell them you dont want any recognition for the act of kindness

as far as being uneducated ...i dont have a college background so i guess you could say that im un-educated somewhat

But

It was me the un-educated person who had to send the beams back down to be cut and redrilled because the educated person couldnt do the math right the first time

It was me the un-educated person that built the 625hp na pump-gas street racer because the educated person couldnt build a engine worth a crap

It was me the un-educated person that made his own wiring harness for his racecar because the educated person couldnt build one worth a crap



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by StumpDrummer

Why do you pick on un-educated people


Erm... refresh my memory. Exactly where did I attack you for being uneducated?

I am sorry for responding to your post. I didn't realise that yours was a ROM post (read only - don't write).



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:43 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.


Before you run crying "mama", remember that you used the "F" word while describing the significance (or lack thereof) of education. Hardly sounds like a debate to me!


We are the product of our society and our society dictates how we "should" think and interact with one another.


Scientists are a highly competitive and at times a sarcastic bunch (have you noticed?), and bullcrap doesn't fly in that medium, at least too often. Sadly, this happens here on ATS when a few members start congratulating themselves on having discovered yet another "truth" hereto hidden from them by some evil global plot.


If you can't understand that, then please pursuit your education and feel free to label yourself as they see fit, because isn't that really the point of life... brainwashed, become a number in society, work and die....


I'm still learning every day but my formal education is mostly done. "Pursuit" is not a verb, by the way. I know that probably because I've been brainwashed.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join