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.

 

MSM has finally found out about abiogenic oil

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Hydrocarbons in the deep earth

A new computational study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals how hydrocarbons may be formed from methane in deep Earth at extreme pressures and temperatures.

The thermodynamic and kinetic properties of hydrocarbons at high pressures and temperatures are important for understanding carbon reservoirs and fluxes in Earth.

The work provides a basis for understanding experiments that demonstrated polymerization of methane to form high hydrocarbons and earlier methane forming reactions under pressure.

Hydrocarbons (molecules composed of the elements hydrogen and carbon) are the main building block of crude oil and natural gas. Hydrocarbons contribute to the global carbon cycle (one of the most important cycles of the Earth that allows for carbon to be recycled and reused throughout the biosphere and all of its organisms).

Geologists and geochemists believe that nearly all (more than 99 percent) of the hydrocarbons in commercially produced crude oil and natural gas are formed by the decomposition of the remains of living organisms, which were buried under layers of sediments in the Earth's crust, a region approximately 5-10 miles below the Earth's surface.

But hydrocarbons of purely chemical deep crustal or mantle origin (abiogenic) could occur in some geologic settings, such as rifts or subduction zones said Galli, a senior author on the study.


They act like it's some kind of ``new phenomenon`` they just found out... The oil industry have known about this for DECADES... this is their most kept secret.

EARTH PRODUCES OIL.


"In the simulation, interactions with metal or carbon surfaces allowed the process to occur faster -- they act as 'catalysts,'" said UC Davis' Leonardo Spanu, the first author of the paper. The research does not address whether hydrocarbons formed deep in the Earth could migrate closer to the surface and contribute to oil or gas deposits. However, the study points to possible microscopic mechanisms of hydrocarbon formation under very high temperatures and pressures.

Fact is : we can produce artificial diamonds. We can produce high temperatures and high pressures... So, we have the capability to produce our own abiogenic oil and have been able for quite some time.

If the government were to fund such a project we could be able to produce our own oil.
edit on 17-4-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Not as easy as that, as much as a nice notion as it is, that would mean all countries would be "equal" They don't even like the thought of that.

Jamie



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
If this is true then why is it becoming increasingly difficult to extract? Why are the Canadian tar sands even a source when they are clearly inefficient to process?

I should add as well, just because we can keep extracting oil does not mean we should. The earth is finite whether we like it or not and even if oil is not, many other resources (mineral, metals, clean water, living species e.c.t) are. This simple fact should eliminate all debate instantly and shift the focus away from treating things as resources to be used.
edit on 17-4-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: added more.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
If the government were to fund such a project we could be able to produce our own oil.
Yes, but at what cost?

$500 a barrel?

Of course lots of things are possible. What often determines whether they are done commercially or not is something you should familiarize yourself with called "economics".

We can make gold from other elements, but when we manufacture it, it costs thousands of times more than when we mine it.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
If this is true then why is it becoming increasingly difficult to extract?

Increasingly difficult to extract? Really?

Why are the Canadian tar sands even a source when they are clearly inefficient to process?
Because it's major $$. Simple as that. Where's there's money to be made, whatever the ecological cost, there will be people there to make it.


Abiogenic oil is the grand secret of the oil industry. If people knew earth was creating oil all the time, not to mention it could be produced in laboratories, the price of oil would crash and the oil industry would get lots of new competitors... which they don't want.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Very interesting information. I did know that many "dry" wells have been found to have "refilled" and begun to produce again.

But we really don't need this kind of oil. Cannabis seed produces a higher grade of oil which can be used in EVERY capacity that petro-oil can. It's renewable, and we don't need high pressure.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Why do you call it a secret? The oil companies talk down peak oil constantly and act like supplies will last for many, many decades with endless growth (which is mathematically impossible on a finite planet).
edit on 17-4-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to
 


But we really don't need this kind of oil. Cannabis seed produces a higher grade of oil which can be used in EVERY capacity that petro-oil can. It's renewable, and we don't need high pressure.


Now I just learned something today but I have a question,- How many seeds would it take to make one gallon of fuel? then- How many plants would it take to make those seeds for one gallon and how much land would one need to grow those plants?
edit on 17-4-2011 by geo1066 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
My grandfather was an executive with Texaco and he told me when I was a kid back in the 70s that the oil companies had known for quite some time that oil was a renewable resource and that it was NOT a fossil fuel. He even tried to tell me exactly how it WAS made. Unfortunately, at the time, I thought he was just plain crazy because we were, after all, taught in school that oil was a fossil fuel. He was quite serious though but I was to young and stupid to really listen.

He used to host big parties for oil executives and military big wigs and according to my Mom and Grandmother after a few drinks they would start talking about all sorts of things. I wish he would have lived longer so I could have found all that he knew.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by geo1066

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to
 


But we really don't need this kind of oil. Cannabis seed produces a higher grade of oil which can be used in EVERY capacity that petro-oil can. It's renewable, and we don't need high pressure.


Now I just learned something today but I have a question,- How many seeds would it take to make one gallon of fuel? then- How many plants would it take to make those seeds for one gallon and how much land would one need to grow those plants?


I couldn't find the answers to your all your questions. I am unsure how many plants, but I do know that the cannabis plant tends to produce a lot of seeds per plant, the buds have medicinal application, and the stocks have textile applications. Also, cannabis is one of the (if not THE) best converters of CO2 into oxygen. The seeds are also edible, provide a complete protein, and a perfect balance of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids.

So even if we needed fields and fields of the plants, they can be grown nearly anywhere, have uses for the whole plant, and smell better than oil rigs.

Here's a link with some information: www.hempembassy.net...



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I am unsure how many plants, but I do know that the cannabis plant tends to produce a lot of seeds per plant, the buds have medicinal application, and the stocks have textile applications. Also, cannabis is one of the (if not THE) best converters of CO2 into oxygen.
Isn't this just a variant of the Ethanol from corn scenario?

Sure fuel can be made from plants, but the costs add up:

1. Land cost
2. Opportunity cost from not growing food: Less acreage from food so we all pay more for our food.
3. Fertilizer if any to increase yield
4. Energy cost to operate irrigation and harvesting equipment
5. Energy cost to operate processing equipment to extract the oil

When we added up all these costs for ethanol from corn, they were huge and what's worse, the process yields NO net energy and we end up with less energy than we started with had we not grown the corn at all.

Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning


David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.


How does growing plants like this to make fuel make any sense when there is a net loss?

It doesn't make sense.

Do you have any evidence to show the economics of making oil from hemp are any better?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I am unsure how many plants, but I do know that the cannabis plant tends to produce a lot of seeds per plant, the buds have medicinal application, and the stocks have textile applications. Also, cannabis is one of the (if not THE) best converters of CO2 into oxygen.
Isn't this just a variant of the Ethanol from corn scenario?


No. Corn has to be rather processed to extract its oil. Cannabis seed oil is more like walnut oil and can be filtered to a number of clarities, and is not only edible but quite good for the Human system.

Once the oil is extracted, it can go for plastics or salad dressing. Or to run a car. But also, in the process, you get hemp, leaves to put an excellent, fertile mulch into the soil, and high oxygenation of the atmosphere. There is no need for much in the way of pesticides - cannabis tend to fend off invaders, and with ladybugs to help, it's a breeze to grow organically. If you rotate crops, as any GOOD farmer knows how, and replace all genmod fields with cannabis for food, clothing and medicine, you can make good money and feel good about your contribution to the planet. In a pinch, the stalks and leaves can be used to build shelter.


Sure fuel can be made from plants, but the costs add up:


You're assuming I want to use it for fuel. We have plenum energy for that. (See my thread, 'Who are "they?"' linked in my sig, and search Zero Point Energy.)


1. Land cost


Farmers used to change crops all the time. Rotation. Deciding to grow cannabis instead of GMO corn for a quadruple return - and that's not even the money - shouldn't be a tough one to make.


2. Opportunity cost from not growing food: Less acreage from food so we all pay more for our food.


Oh, but the seeds ARE for food, not fuel.


3. Fertilizer if any to increase yield


No need with proper rotation.


4. Energy cost to operate irrigation and harvesting equipment


Already in place and would be spent anyway.


5. Energy cost to operate processing equipment to extract the oil


There are already places on this planet that do that. I imagine they may expand. Or an enterprising individual might get backers and build plants... Or retrofitting will take place. If it's cannabis seed or no buisiness, arrangements will be made.


When we added up all these costs for ethanol from corn, they were huge and what's worse, the process yields NO net energy and we end up with less energy than we started with had we not grown the corn at all.


Yeah, well, as I said. Not looking to use it for fuel.


Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning


David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.


How does growing plants like this to make fuel make any sense when there is a net loss?


Well, it doesn't. That's why growing for biomass is not the best option. Though, I will say, per volume of seed-flesh, cannabis will deliver a much higher quantity of oil.


It doesn't make sense.


I agree. Except that, even IF we were to use it for energy, it would be a much cleaner, healthier exhaust we'd be dealing with.


Do you have any evidence to show the economics of making oil from hemp are any better?


No, but then you assume I thought we should use it for energy. I understand why that is. My point was there are much better options - people could press their own oil from the food crops and eat and run their cars - if they ran on cannabis oil. And with cannabis, places you would never grow anything else, you can grow cannabis.

Fortunately, we have plenum energy.
edit on 4/17/2011 by Amaterasu because: Finish a thought



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Is this a public study result cause I think it's awesome that this is finally disclosed.

Star and flag for the big news.

PS

Why isn't this in the breaking news forum
edit on 4/17/2011 by Sinter Klaas because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5

log in

join