It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Just a Question.... Please reply.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:49 AM
I was jus wondering, ive been hearing alot about how oil, coal, etc are not made by "fossils". So my question is, what is it? what is it on the earth, i heard someone say it was to lubricate the plates of the earth, but isnt it EXTREMLEY hot and would burn the fuel down there? or am i missing something.

Thanks for the help

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:28 AM
You are saying that the tectonic plates are lubricated by oil like gears, what a joke the person who said this to you just made fun of you

The tectonic plate movements are due to magma boiling and moving deep underneath the plates.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:38 AM
I think you are mistaken that oil must have a function in the Earth.
It´s just a product of fossilized biological matter like plankton and vegetation.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:50 AM
I think it's only fair to elaborate a little for the OP, especially on the word "fossil" in fossil fuels.

Most people think of something along the lines of an animal carved into rock when they hear the word fossil, but with oil it really only has to do with its place within the rock strata.

The oil itself is broken down biological matter. Think of the black sludge under fallen Autumn leaves that have been left to sit on forest floor, or even an old leaf-pile in your yard. This is a mini-example of how matter breaks down. Now imagine the same on a global scale over much more time.

[edit on 9/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:55 AM
Well yes what you both are saying is true but you dont get the point that the tectonic plates are moving by magma alone and not the oil.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by peacejet

You are quite correct. Oil is in pockets within the mantle, while the crust itself sits atop magma that is far closer to the core.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:23 AM
I too am of the belief that oil is not fossil fuel. Check here:

I do not know where it really came from, or what it's real purpose is, outside of lubricating plates, as was said, but I do know that so called fossils are way above where they are drilling today. I don't have time right now to research this, so someone else may.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 06:26 PM

Originally posted by tylerc25211
I was jus wondering, ive been hearing alot about how oil, coal, etc are not made by "fossils". So my question is, what is it?

Most scientists agree oil is the "left over" product of plants and animals from millions of years ago.

But there are a few scientists who believe differently. They have a "theory".

Abiogenic Petroleum Origin - Wikipedia

The hypothesis of abiogenic petroleum origin is an alternative hypothesis to the biological origin theory, but petroleum geologists outside of Russia and Ukraine have not considered it to be of commercial value.[1] It states that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The presence of methane in the solar system is taken as evidence. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle. The abiogenic petroleum hypothesis predicts that oil is formed in the mantle at temperatures and pressures consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

Beyond the 'Peak-Oil Production' Hoax

In August 2004, a group of scientists, including Nobel prize winner Dr. Dudley R. Herschbach of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry, published results of an experiment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in which they synthesized methane inorganically in a diamond-anvil experiment, utilizing iron oxide, calcite and water in a Fisher-Tropsch reaction under temperatures and pressures designed to resemble relevant conditions in the Earth's mantle. Again, the scientists left no doubt regarding their conclusions:

"The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed."

Supporters of the biological theory of the origin of oil now have no basis for insisting that natural gas can only be produced from biological content, whether the biological debris specified is dead dinosaurs, ancient forests, or plankton resident in alluvial type sedimentary deposits on the continental shelf.

Abiotic Oil

Supporting Evidence, Briefly

* Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found.
* Wells pumped dry later replenished.
* Volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models.

This "hypothesis" must be what your friend was referring to.

Apparently the Russians are able to drill down around 40,000 feet and find oil almost anywhere.

Here's a couple more articles for your reading pleasure on the subject.

Abiotic Oil Theory: The Bane of Enviro-Marxists
The 'Abiotic Oil' Controversy
Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam
Petroleum Under Pressure

[edit on 9/13/2008 by Keyhole]

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 06:37 PM
Here's a diagram and text of the theory the Russians have about how their ultra deep drilling (30,000 to 40,000 feet deep) works and why the wells seem to replenish themselves.

Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam

[edit on 9/13/2008 by Keyhole]

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 07:50 PM
keyhole is on the spot with his explanation above of the abiotic oil. It is a theory which is continuing to gain acceptance as time passes, and one I find plausible.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe (and the stuff our sun 'burns' as fuel, and carbon is the fourth most abundant element. These two elements, when combined, produce hydrocarbons. Methane (a major component of natural gas) is formed when there is an abundance of hydrogen (and of course, a lack of oxygen), while different levels of a lack of hydrogen lead to heavier hydrocarbons (oil). The hydrocarbons are easily flammable, as you know, but there is little oxygen in the depths of the earth. Without oxygen, there can be no combustion as we know it, since combustion is a combination with oxygen accompanied by a release of energy.

Coal is formed when carbon is heated with little hydrogen, but in the presence of other impurities (such as sulfur, chlorine and water/steam). When no readily reactive impurities exist, the carbon forms graphite or diamond, depending on the temperature/pressure involved. This lack of other elements is rare in a natural setting, which is why diamond is so rare. Nature typically works with a combination of elements; only man tends to separate them out.

One of my present projects actually uses this principle, heating carbon compounds in a pure hydrogen atmosphere to produce methane. Safety concerns are the major impediment at this point in time.


posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:26 PM
What an interesting theory!!

I have always wondered how may dinos make up one tank of fuel against how many dinos there were and how may tanks of fuel have been filled since the introduction of the combustion engine.

Surely some mathematical equation exists to explain this thesis?

I shall dig until I hit something ... (excuse pun).


posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by tylerc25211
I was just wondering, ive been hearing alot about how oil, coal, etc are not made by "fossils". So my question is, what is it? what is it on the earth, i heard someone say it was to lubricate the plates of the earth, but isnt it EXTREMELY hot and would burn the fuel down there? or am i missing something.

Thanks for the help

HI tylerc25211, thanks for posting this. I'm curious as to where you heard that oil, coal, etc are not made by "fossils". (??) Because I've always heard that they are, from grade school to college & TV.

Would have a link for a source of info?

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by Komodo

Because I've always heard that they are, from grade school to college & TV.

So did I. I think everyone did, because that used to be the only accepted theory going. Schools teach what is known at the time, and science is constantly changing, examining new ideas and new possibilities.

I wanted to point out something I omitted in my post above, and that is that whether you believe oil is biologically created or abiotic, it still consists of carbon and hydrogen. Life is made up of carbon in abundance, so who's to say the original carbon in the abiotic theory didn't come from dinosaurs? Just because it didn't have to, doesn't mean it didn't.

I think keyhole did a wonderful job of providing links to the theory.


posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:18 PM
Thanks Redneck.

I just wonder why none of the US "Big Oil" companies haven't tried this "ultra deep drilling" system that the Russians have developed yet. If this theory is true and this drilling technique works, the US could end it's dependencies on foreign oil.

Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' Is A Misleading Zionist Scam

In 1970, the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production.

True or not, fossil fuel or abiotic oil, the Russians ultra deep drilling technique seems to work and produce oil where experts said there was none.

Vietnamese were told officially by American oil multinationals that their country was barren; that western 'cutting edge' technology had failed to find anything to help them recover financially ...

Then Russia came in (mainly to embarrass the US) and found oil for them.

The Vietnamese White Tiger oil field was and is a raging success, currently producing high quality crude oil from basalt rock more than 17,000 feet below the surface of the earth, at 6,000 barrels per day per well.

Russians can apparently drill an ultra deep oil well in areas known to be (or at least thought to be known) barren of oil and find oil just by drilling deep enough.

Another benefit of the US having these ultra deep oil wells is that these ultra deep wells seem to replenish themselves.

This is the point at which the second massive advantage derived from ultra-deep oil comes into play. Do you remember how puzzled the reservoir engineers were when they discovered that their existing reserves were being "topped up" from below? They later discovered that what they were really observing were naturally occurring ultra-deep oil wells, leaking vast quantities of oil from the mantle of the earth upwards through fractures into what we nowadays refer to as "sedimentary oilfields", located relatively close to the surface. As the production companies draw oil out of these known reservoirs through oil wells, field pressure is slightly reduced, thereby allowing more ultra-deep oil to migrate up from the mantle and restock the reservoir from below.

I would have thought that US oil companies would be drooling and climbing all over each other trying to acquire this drilling technology, but so far I haven't heard a thing about US companies even commenting on ultra deep oil drilling.

I'd really like to see a couple of these oil wells drilled in the US, where the "experts" think there is no oil, and see the results.

[edit on 9/14/2008 by Keyhole]

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:20 AM
I will tell you exactly why the US does not drill the way the Russians do.


Flooding the world's oil markets would be good for us little guys but Exxon-mobile wouldn't profit the way they do, but they are not the bad guys.

Globalism is the bad guy, and those who want global economics.

Tell me, if we stop buying oil, coal and diamonds from desperately poor countries ranging from Asia to Africa then exactly what mechanism will TPTB use to transfer wealth to those countries?

The simple truth is they have nothing else to sell, so the world would starve if all the developed nations started to become truly energy independent. Independence is not even a goal of the US, only stability of supply is a goal.

Personally I think the notion that oil comes from 'dead dinosaurs' as i was taught from grade school on is so preposterously stupid that it doesn't pass the "smell test" from 50 feet away while i'm standing up wind.

Consider it always through the evil dual prisms of profit and politics, that usually explains everything.

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 01:49 PM
Hi, friendly neighborhood oilfield geologist here. They do drill "super deep" wells in the us you just don't hear about it because the oil exploration industry is so secretive. I have been on 4 wells in past 2 years that drilled beyond 30k feet. Non found any oil below 18k. Though there were really good amounts of NG below 10k. The oil company's just don't release this info until they have acquired all the leases they want. They are required by law to report there finding within 30 day of completing the well. Witch in layman's term's dos'nt mean just drilled. It means completely done with stimulation and hooked into the pipeline and producing. So... to get around this they drill it, test it and cap it till they get all the wells drilled or the leases they want bought up then hook em all into the pipeline.

One big reason you don't see more of these type of wells is because of the expense of drilling them. Wells typically cost 50k a day to drill on average and it takes up to 18 months or more to drill that deep. At 18 months of drill time you are spending $27,375,000 just to see what is down there. This is with no problems. When you are drilling that deep there are always problems. Many times a rig wont be able to even make that depth and they twist off the drill pipe or lose stuff downhole and have to spend weeks fishing for it and most likely have to either abandon the well or plug it back and start over. So you might spend all that money and not even hit your total depth let alone find commercial quantity of hydrocarbons. Oil company's want the sure thing, not a 27 million dollar maybe. The Russian Abiogenic theory has as of yet to be proven yet but has not been disproved yet either. There is a lot of work going on in the gulf right now testing russian methods and theory's and early indications look good for the theory.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Nicademus]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Nicademus]

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 04:35 AM
thanks guys that's exactly what i was looking for. the russian theory does seem to be working for them, if i was in big oil i would definitely take a shot at it. but as someone said they would loose alot of money by flooding the market with oil. I definetly think this should be taken seriously.

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 08:40 AM
Dont you know that Planet Earth is actually a giant space ship run by old fashioned fossil fuel...(made before they discovered anti-gravity propulsion systems

posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 07:59 PM
LOL @ abiotic oil gaining credence over time!
Abiotic oil does indeed exist, but not in the amounts that the conspiracy buffs would have you believe.
Even proven BIOTIC payzones sometimes replenish themselves, because of cracks and the porosity in the rocks, especially in places like synclines, like your diagram earlier represents.
Oil is formed mainly from shallow water marine fossils. Oil is created at a temperature of around (if i remember correctly) 240-260 degrees. If the sediments that hold the fossils go above 260, they start turning to gas. Above 300 degrees, the oil and gas begins to get destroyed.
Russia is the worlds 8th largest oil exporter, and the worlds #1 gas exporter. Its top 8 producing fields are all shallow water marine fossil deposits.
Lithospheric plates move because the upper asthenosphere is plastic-like, maleable rock, and below it, in the mantle, there are convection currents withing the magma. The topographic experssion of these currents is mainly mid-ocean ridges, but can br crustal, as in rift valleys (iceland?).
Why drill to 40,000 foot, when most biotic oil is found at 6000-11000 foot. It is very exspensive to drill deep holes.

posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by tylerc25211
thanks guys that's exactly what i was looking for. the russian theory does seem to be working for them, if i was in big oil i would definitely take a shot at it. but as someone said they would loose alot of money by flooding the market with oil. I definetly think this should be taken seriously.

Big oil would be all over this like a rash. There is an always increasing trend in consumption. The USA consumes 80 million barrels a day, and produces only 26 million a day - hence their reliance on importing from the middle east.
Now, if you were Shell or whomever, and you could drill vast reserves of domestic oil, wether biotic or abiotic, you would do so immediately. There is huge profits to be made. The increase in domestic production would result in a decrease of importation from the middle east. It would not be 'a flood' of the market, resulting in deprecated values for oil. If a huge field is found, then OPEC reduces production elsewhere.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by cruzion]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in