NASA discovers that Oil is not a fossil fuel. Peak Oil Confirmed Hoax

You people eat up Fox news exactly like Germany ate up Hitler in the 30's.

That, plus putting trolls on permanent ignore.

This is the way I see it.

For all I know abiotic oil could be true. Even if it is, the Earth does not produce the stuff fast enough to meet daily demand. Otherwise, if the earth has been producing oil beneath the ground at terrific rates for the last severall million years shouldn't we have streams, lakes, and ponds of oil?

How do you explain oil well depletion? We used it up and it's dry. It had to take the oil well thousands, if not millions, of years to produce that well to the level at which we consumed it in just a few decades.

So, if abiotic oil is true, then it's okay.. We're just gonna have a rough ride for the next million years, but it'll be worth the wait right?

Also,

I saw a video of the author of the book that you claimed would open our eyes. He was debating Matthew Simmons (another book that may even open your eyes). Guys argument was that the oil is there we just have to drill deeper to get it.

Well, that costs more, and the flow rates are slower which creats a supply/demand squeeze which leads to higher prices....

shouldn't we have streams, lakes, and ponds of oil?

Not unless the earth was 6,000 years old .... most of the Abiotic oil "actvists" believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. Not saying it's the case with this troll but it usually is in my own experience on these boards.

Abiotic Oil feeding the underground deposits in their salt plugged an imperveous hard rock enclosure....
Forget the trolls.... what do my fellow elves carry it up into the chambers?.......maybe its the oompa loompers Charlie and The Chocolate factory :-) with rivers of oil instead of chocolate.....Abiotic Oil as a process is scientifically possible but this whole issue is soo jumped on... no serious scientists are even remotely posing this a workable and even considerable hypothesis which is why the rest of the scientific world are ignoring it because its drivel.

regards

Elf.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by MischeviousElf]

so NASA isn't a group of serious scientists?
lol. ok. They are just a small group of hobbyists with a budget big enough to buy model airplanes.

Some of you people are obviously in denial. The NASA finding is a major discovery and shouldn't be taken lightly. This is just the beginning. As time goes by this issue is going to really blow up. You will see more and more scientists rally around Nasa and it's findings.

You people put too much trust/faith in the oil companies. What are your opinions going to be when the price is 100-200 a barrel and the companies are making trillions in profits?

Are you still going to believe the oil corporations are fair and honest when your entire paycheque will only equal one full tank of gas? Think about that.
North America won't be able any bills. What happens when you don't pay your bills?

Oh wait. you probably think the oil corporations are kind enough to do that for you.

Seriously folks. Read black gold stranglehold. The oil corporations are taking us for a ride.

www.cumberlandhouse.com...

Think about the fossil fuels idea for a second. It doesn't hold water. How can herds of dinos just pile up in Saudi Arabia like the Oil Corporations believe? If Oil was indeed a "fossil fuel" Saudi Arabia would have dried up a long long time ago.

www.energybulletin.net...
worldnetdaily.com...





[edit on 10-12-2005 by Huabamambo]

methane can be formed into longer chain hydrocarbons. in a coker the heavy tar oils are heated to 900 deg f and more. there are two competing reactions going on. 1 is the cracking of the long chain hydrocarbons into lighter fractions. and 2 the polymerizing of hydrocarbons into coke ( this includes the lighter fraction that were cracked). control the conditions and you end up making more light fractions compared to coke.

could this process go beneath the ground? most likely and accounts for the heavy and light crudes that come out of the ground ( ie tar sands ) not to mention that the same catalyst that is used to crack for gasoline is also used to turn methanol into gasoline and is similar to sand

is oil the result of organic mater decay? yes.

could oil be made by a different process than decay? possibly

is the solar system filled with hydrocarbon gas and liquid? yes.

metane is ch4, ethane is c2h6 both found in the solar system, so who's to say the earth didn't get a share of the gasses so widely found in the solar system and burried down beneath the earth in a geologic type of coker.

that is a whole lot of dino's and vegatation that would make up the mideasts oil reserves if you dont account for any other possibilities

after all they have found naturaly occuring nuclear reactors

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
Ok fine some oil may not be orginiac .now tell me how this helps us with our SUPPLY and demand problems .

Some oil are clearly of non biological origin ( and that is widely admitted) but the argument currently goes that it is insignificant ammounts. Supply and demand problems have nothing to do with supply and demand as there is far more supply than there is demand. That is also very much established fact.

Because regurdless of how much there may be you still need to drill pupm diliver refine and disturbuit it.

Their profits are going up, not down. They have had the infrastructure for ages and it's clear they did not suddenly have to start drilling deeper to get to oil so why the increase in prices? Oil is dirt cheap to get above ground given the ammounts of profit that are made once it gets there and there is no reason to suppose that drilling twice as deep will increase the price at ground level by half as much again either....

The info structure nessery to do this can no long be enlarged or even matained at current leavels.

Can and is at very little cost to companies in question

So oceans full of oil will do you no good .

Not as long as availability has absolutely nothing to do with the price at the pump....

Ps and lets not forget green house effects aside a incress of co2 in the aire of 20% would kill us regurdless of the temp .(c02 poisining).

Wich is mostly to do with the Sun heating up ( as all the other planets are heating up aswell) and not with our wastefull and criminally run energy infrastructures.

The point is we need other sorces of energy.

We have obvious energy sources to fall back on but they would not be able to manipulate these so they do their best to prevent them from getting on the market.

Stellar

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
This has already been pretty well debunked at
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not sure how you came to that conclusion but feel free to clarify as i certainly saw no debunking going on...

Stellar

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Someone forgot to tell 99 percent of the world's geologists and petroleum engineers. Maybe you ought to send them a memo.

As if sending people memo's will change closed minds who only work to protect their jobs and standing.... There are obviously a few who do question the data all the others believe in but coming up with different conclusions makes you crazy untill everyone else believes it aswell...

If you could come up with a comparison between the cost of refining crude oil to gasoline and hemp plants into a viable internal cumbustion fuel, taking into consideration re-doing the complete world fuel infrastrucutre, the loss of land to other farm products, the amount of water needed to produce the hemp fuel, using available data to quantify your claims, people might believe you.

The factor wich is most important is not what it costs but the fact that every country could produce their own in the quantities they needed. Huge areas of the world is currently used to grow cash crops who's only purpose is to gain dollars to buy oil or fuel with so the poorest countries will not be worse off imo.

Even I might. But if you can't show that large-scale use of hemp-derived fuel is a cost-effective replacement for petroleum, nobody will buy your assertions....

Speak for yourself please.

But wait!!
If, as you say, there is no peak oil problem, then why aren't we pumping the oil out of our newly-replensihed oil wells in Texas and Oklahoma? If there is no peak oil problem, why even bother with hemp?

Because oil is controlled product that enriches but a few countries at the expense of most other. How much wealth ( in terms of resources sold to pay for oil) is transferred from the third world to the first just to get this one highly manipulated resource that everyone needs? Much of the world suffers not because they do not have resources but because a few resources is manipulated so well that the others become all but irrelevent.

Stellar

Originally posted by Gools
Geologists and other professionals apply the knowledge of how oil is formed and deposited to find it! And they have been quite successful.

They do apply all their knowledge to find it but that has not in my opinion made them very successfull at it. They are still at best drilling two dry holes for every one that produces at least some oil.

As pointed out, dry wells don't refill. Once they peak they go into decline. End of story.

As far as i understand dry wells do not refill or produce anything but entire fields that have gone into decline have been known to suddenly start giving much higher production numbers without any measure being taken to result in such. They are clearly refilling from deeper sources of some sort.

If crude oil was formed somehow by inorganic chemistry and percolated up through the earth it would be randomly distributed or form under very specific conditions different than those where it is now found.

It is actually widely admitted that some oil do indeed form inorganically but this is normally considered to be in such small ammounts that it does not feature in calculations or oil speculation.

You come here and insult the intelligence of moderators (thanks for the U2U BTW :shk: ), supermods, subject matter experts and members who are engineers?

Being rude and worse does not logically lead to him being wrong as much as he might be disliked by the experts.... There are few constants in human interaction but one of them is the fact that experts keeps being wrong about most anything.

Here's a clue for you to get. Were not in on the big conspiracy. We just use our heads.

Anyone who repeats what they read in text books and on the news is in my opinion part of the conspiracy as they are the ones who propages and enforces it. Conspiracies could not exsist otherwise imo...

Stellar

Originally posted by djohnsto77
How do you explain that the carbon isotope analysis of petroleum matches biological material and disagrees with abiotic carbon sources?

The fact that oil comes out of the ground and normally percolates up trough it thus possibly picking up organic markers that way? Why would oil that is formed in a specific location not carry biological markets from that area is my question to you....

Stellar

Originally posted by Umbrax
Convince the population there is no limit to oil.

Since they are offering almost now affordable alternatives it really does not matter what people believe as they will just have to keep using oil.

No need to change to other energy resources.

The average guy can not affect that change so why draw him into the discussion? While our governments refuse to invest people will assume there is not much need...

Instead of making coments that don't address the issues presented to you, why not try to answer them?

I think his doing better than you are by asking hard question while your just defending claims made by officials in the same governments that are not offering alternatives. Defending the faith is really easy ....

Stellar

Well thats good. Someone phone Bush and tell him no need for oil wars

But, anyways... How long does it take for new oil to form? Are we consuming at a faster rate than the Earth is producing?

Don't we release some amounts of methane when we fart? Hence the flaming fart.

Originally posted by StellarX
The fact that oil comes out of the ground and normally percolates up trough it thus possibly picking up organic markers that way? Why would oil that is formed in a specific location not carry biological markets from that area is my question to you....

Stellar

I'm not talking about biological markers, I'm talking about carbon atom isotope ratios. The ratio of 12C to 13C is different in material from life than it is from nonliving natural sources, due to a bias for carbon-12 shown in many biological chemical processes.

www.madsci.org...

[edit on 12/16/2005 by djohnsto77]

While you all bash each other let me just say this, I think all of you know just as much as every other person on this earth, including the so called "experts", a whole lot of jack squat.

It's all up in the air right now, the truth will come in time.

Stellarex, I barely know where to start. I have many issues with your comments, and I will address them as best as I can.

You say, in response to SimCity’s comment about supply and demand of putative abiotic oil supply:

Supply and demand problems have nothing to do with supply and demand as there is far more supply than there is demand. That is also very much established fact.

Not only is your “established fact” rejected by just about everyone I know, but your comment tells me your next basic econ class will be your first. I don’t think you even understand what SimCity is saying.

You ask why the prices have gone up, trying to discuss it in terms of infrastructure costs. The answer to that is simple: OPEC raises the price to increase their profits and to keep their supply viable for a few more decades.

You seem to believe in a strange astronomical phenomenon:

the Sun heating up ( as all the other planets are heating up aswell) and not with our wastefull and criminally run energy infrastructures.

I cannot think of any scientist who believes such. Do you have any evidence at all of a gradual and long-term incresase in the temperatures of either the Sun or any of the planets (other than Earth)? If so, where is your evidence? What are your citations?

When someone says that we need other sources of energy, you reply with:

We have obvious energy sources to fall back on but they would not be able to manipulate these so they do their best to prevent them from getting on the market.

Yet you do not identify these “obvious’ sources except to say they’re being subverted by some Secret Plot by ”they”. And, of course, you never mention the sources or the “they”.

As if sending people memo's will change closed minds who only work to protect their jobs and standing...

It’s called a “joke”, stellarx . It’s in the dictionary, just like “sense of humor” is.

I asked if anyone believing in hemp had ever come up with a cost-comparison to see whether it’s feasible to use hemp oil for fuel. You replied:

The factor wich is most important is not what it costs but the fact that every country could produce their own in the quantities they needed.

Rubbish! Cost is important, because if something is not cost-effective, no one will do it. And your statement about the “fact” that every country could produce their own in the quantities they needed…!

C’mon!. You don’t have a clue as to how many acres of arable land would be needed to grow the hemp, what the water requirements are, how much hemp you would need to produce a gallon of fuel, or how much fuel any country needs. In short, you have no substantiation whatsoever, and you are saying that because you would like it to be true.

Well, I’d “like” it to be true too, but wanting something to be true doesn’t make it that way. If you talk about this unsubstantiated wishes as “fact”, I don’t think anyone’s going to give you any credibility at all.

NASA scientists didn't discover it....Russian scientists did - ages ago.

And they've known this for like what, 50 years, and found out how to make and access deeper reserves of oil like 30 years back.

And they've already proven this is true.

So this news it really very old

Not according to some of the Fox news junkies around here.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'm not talking about biological markers, I'm talking about carbon atom isotope ratios. The ratio of 12C to 13C is different in material from life than it is from nonliving natural sources, due to a bias for carbon-12 shown in many biological chemical processes.

www.madsci.org...

[edit on 12/16/2005 by djohnsto77]

[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread185401/pg#pid1904253[url]

Second post from the bottem. I can be more specific or find some sources for that if you need to see them for yourself.

Stellar