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.

 

Abundance of Methane Hydrates will Destroy the Oil Market

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Hemp is not a fertilizer intensive crop, just the opposite, it is a weed.


It takes more than fertilizer to grow thousands of acres of a single crop. It takes pesticides. It requires conventional farming methods that deplete topsoil and add to the release of various greenhouse gasses. Conventional farming methods are not pretty. And that would be the only way to grow enough hemp to replace oil, as he was suggesting. Sure, you can grow relatively small amounts of hemp in sustainable ways, but in order to make enough to even begin to compete with oil you would have to be using the most industrially intensive 'conventional' farming methods available.




I see a mix of solutions and a large drop in the need for energy consumption also as the answer.


Agreed. My only point is that the claim we can be off oil in less than a decade is just not true, precisely because we still consume more energy every day.


But this is all off topic.




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


We could still do oil but we have to lower our consumption so it's there if needed in the future. Man will be around for a while yet, can't we save a little for the future?


I totally agree. My contention was with your 'off oil in 3-5 years' claim. That's not doable at our present rate of consumption. At. All.


I said "largely" off oil not completely. The only thing standing in the way is big oil and their lapdog politicians blocking all other forms of alternative energy with legislation and regulation etc.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


There is no hydraulic fracking going on. The Methane is essentially on the ocean bed of the continental shelf. Using gases to release this methane for capture should have very little impact. These aren't toxic releases as is the case with crude oil.

The biggest impact would be on sea life in the areas where this takes place, but there is a good chance this would only move sea life around.



Okay, back on topic.

I dont know much about this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the problem with hydrolic fracking is that it opens up fissures in existing water tables, which then mix not only with the chemical slurry, but with the gasses that have now been freed?

Because, if so, it seems like this process is still similar in that regard.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Hemp is not a fertilizer intensive crop, just the opposite, it is a weed.


It takes more than fertilizer to grow thousands of acres of a single crop. It takes pesticides. It requires conventional farming methods that deplete topsoil and add to the release of various greenhouse gasses. Conventional farming methods are not pretty. And that would be the only way to grow enough hemp to replace oil, as he was suggesting. Sure, you can grow relatively small amounts of hemp in sustainable ways, but in order to make enough to even begin to compete with oil you would have to be using the most industrially intensive 'conventional' farming methods available.




I see a mix of solutions and a large drop in the need for energy consumption also as the answer.


Agreed. My only point is that the claim we can be off oil in less than a decade is just not true, precisely because we still consume more energy every day.


But this is all off topic.


You obviously know nothing about hemp and how easy it is to grow and how beneficial it is to the soil. read and learn: www.hemphasis.net...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by hawkiye


Hemp is just one alternative there are a number of things plastics can be made from and also recycling.


Indeed. Recycling is another example of a technology that can help us lower the amount of oil we must harvest. But it is also fraught with problems and is energy intensive and polluting. There is no magic green bullet.



Yes there is www.thenakedscientists.com...


From your article:



Worldwide players, such as DuPont and Toyota Motor Corp, are making vast investments in new technologies and processing plants with the hope of cornering a multi-billion pound industry.


So, how is that a move away from 'big oil'?

You see the problem, right? You can move to growing thousands more acres of potatoes to make biodegradable plastics, but that entire process is still incredibly energy intensive in and of itself. So it's, essentially, a lateral move. The real change would come from people not using tupperware containers (The example the article uses). From people not consuming things meant to be disposed of.

And just imagine, all of the problems i describe with hemp earlier, apply to these potatoe plastics. Its just like virgin biofuels and ethanol from GMO corn. It's NOT sustainable It's not green.

And it most certainly is not, as you claim a magic bullet.

It is not 'big oil propaganda' that our entire society use an enormous amount of oil. Sure, yes, our governments are controlled by these oil companies and they dictate policy which enriches them and forces us to use them for far more things than we actually need them for.

But all the examples you supply only look at lateral moves, instead of the real, complex, near impossible task of how we can go about, on a societal level, drastically reducing our rate of consumption. Not just the minority of hippies and back to landers and the global poor, but our entire society. And that will be far more effective than potato starch disposable plastics, or, as in the case of this article, using energy intensive technologies to release more methane from the sea floor (with who knows what environmental consequence) so that we can continue to heat our giant mcmansions at a ridiculously low price.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye


You obviously know nothing about hemp and how easy it is to grow and how beneficial it is to the soil. read and learn: www.hemphasis.net...


No, you just obviously understand the sheer scale it would take to grow enough hemp to achieve the levels of consumption-replacement for oil products.

Again, we arent talking using it to make a handful of products here and there. You spoke of using it on a scale that would help move us largely off oil in 3-5 years. That would require easily doubling or quadrupling (at least!) the amount of hemp we grow. The problem with your analysis isnt the reliability of the info you present, but a misunderstanding on your part of the scale involved here. There are indeed enormous things you can do with 'alternate' technologies. I use many myself, to be sure. Your more than welcome to arrange a visit down on the farm some time. But when speaking of using these things to replace the roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day the US alone consumes. The only real solution is to restructure our society in a way that doesnt need to produce plastics from oil OR potatoes. And that is a lot harder than posting some links about hemp.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 



So, how is that a move away from 'big oil'? 


It was only an example that there are alternatives of course Dupont and others will try and co-opt the technology doesn't mean they are not viable alternatives. So what is your point?


You see the problem, right? You can move to growing thousands more acres of potatoes to make biodegradable plastics, but that entire process is still incredibly energy intensive in and of itself. So it's, essentially, a lateral move. The real change would come from people not using tupperware containers (The example the article uses). From people not consuming things meant to be disposed of. 


It is less energy intensive then drilling transporting and processing oil so whats your point again?


And just imagine, all of the problems i describe with hemp earlier, apply to these potatoe plastics. Its just like virgin biofuels and ethanol from GMO corn. It's NOT sustainable It's not green.
 

Apparently you did not read my response to you on that or the link I posted. You simply have no clue what your talking about when it comes to hemp. It is good for the soil and pretty much grows itself with little attention. And I said nothing about gmo corn etc. corn is not the best way to produce ethanol anyway their are a number of far more productive crops for that some of them don't even need conventional farmland either. Stop trying to set up strawman arguments.


It is not 'big oil propaganda' that our entire society use an enormous amount of oil. Sure, yes, our governments are controlled by these oil companies and they dictate policy which enriches them and forces us to use them for far more things than we actually need them for. 


It is big oil propaganda that we could not replace most oil and their bi-products in a relatively short amount of time. Most of the technologies have been around since the inception of big oil. You are repeating their propaganda right now getting all worked up over how much oil we use as if there are no viable alternatives.


But all the examples you supply only look at lateral moves, instead of the real, complex, near impossible task of how we can go about, on a societal level, drastically reducing our rate of consumption. Not just the minority of hippies and back to landers and the global poor, but our entire society. And that will be far more effective than potato starch disposable plastics, or, as in the case of this article, using energy intensive technologies to release more methane from the sea floor (with who knows what environmental consequence) so that we can continue to heat our giant mcmansions at a ridiculously low price.


So what lateral moves are better then status quo and continuing to destroy the planet so whats your point. Cutting consumption will be a part of it however using alternatives is the final answer and the sooner we start the better rather then repeating big oil propaganda that it is near impossible to replace oil and sit on our hands. We have a lot of crop land sitting dormant now that could be producing hemp and other products that to replace oil products and creating jobs. Methane is easy to make farmers have been making it for over a a century no reason it could not be ramped up large scale. There is no need for this BS in the OP!



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


It was only an example that there are alternatives of course Dupont and others will try and co-opt the technology doesn't mean they are not viable alternatives. So what is your point?

 


But I thought it was all big oil propaganda that says none of this works? Why is big oil investing in it?

Why does "big oil" support the very thing that supposedly is going to make it go broke...




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


There are no current resources to replace big oil. The only answer will be to greatly reduce our energy consumption, which is what needs to happen.

Currently we waste huge amounts of energy, because it greatly enriches the big corporations.

We will have to greatly change our infrastructure. It isn't feasible or efficient to produce products on one side of the planet, to sell on the other. When big oil runs out, as will most likely happen in the next decade, all of this will change. The big suburban sprawls will no longer be functionable. Gas powered autos really aren't needed, and various types of electric hybrids will be fine. We will end planned obsolescence, because again, it serves no purpose except to enrich the corporations.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Either we do something to capture the large amounts of methane that are currently escaping from the continental shelves of the Arctic Ocean, or we will see a rapid rise in global warming, which might reach a tipping point that will have grave environmental consequences.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Most likely because big oil is going to have to find another source of income, and would very much like to continue to control the planets energy sources.

Might be their reasoning.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by boncho
 


Most likely because big oil is going to have to find another source of income, and would very much like to continue to control the planets energy sources.

Might be their reasoning.


No, that doesn't fly with the whole "we suppress everything" conspiracy. You're close to reality, but I wasnt addressing reality...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye


It was only an example that there are alternatives of course Dupont and others will try and co-opt the technology doesn't mean they are not viable alternatives. So what is your point?

 


But I thought it was all big oil propaganda that says none of this works? Why is big oil investing in it?

Why does "big oil" support the very thing that supposedly is going to make it go broke...



Yeah gee they are supposedly doing research on it so that means they must be supporting it because they have never bought and shelved alternatives that could put big oil out of business and they are all perfectly honest and upright and have ours and the planets best interest at heart and are not greedy and underhanded like all the conspiracy theorist claim they are...Sigh!


Geeze take a break from repeating their propaganda ad nausea...


edit on 9-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
rape the earth more!!!
......................................................
this is not how we were meant to live. cars, jets, consumerism...why? what's the end goal? happiness will never be found in such things, only pain and death.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Aren't these the methane hydrates that make deep water oil exploration so dangerous. Seems like I heard them mentioned with the oil spill couple of years ago.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


I have been watching the news on Arctic Methane releases since I first heard about it last year. To me, this is an extremely serious potential problem that could trigger a tipping point in global warming, and greatly accelerate climate change.

This is great news to hear, that we might be able to develop the tech to tap this methane, and turn what could be a global menace into a new source of abundant energy.

oilprice.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Yes, it will but do not fear, just as it will cause a tipping point. It will be followed by another ice age. Just as it's been for the last several billion years here on earth.
edit on 5/9/2012 by Ilyich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Either we do something to capture the large amounts of methane that are currently escaping from the continental shelves of the Arctic Ocean, or we will see a rapid rise in global warming, which might reach a tipping point that will have grave environmental consequences.



What? That doesnt even make sense. First of all. this article you post is talking about TRAPPED methane. Secondly, how does harvesting methane and then burning it for fuel prevent global warming?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 


Who knows, after a few thousand years of high temperatures, we might revert back to another ice age. That won't do much for all the current residents of islands and all the coastal areas that will be covered by the sea.

But no, we haven't been going through ice ages throughout the last few billion years, its last 2 - 3 million years.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Maybe you should do some research of your own, and then things will start to make sense.

Methane contributes more to the greenhouse effect than co2, a lot more. Burning Methane produces c02, but 1/8th of what burning gasoline produces. It is the cleaner form of abundant energy that is easy to use.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Okay, that's interesting. Thanks.

Regardless, you understand that's not what this article you posted is talking about,right? This is trapped methane.







 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join