Oil is not of fossil origin and is inexhaustible

reply to post by Astyanax


Well said Astyanax

I like your style

I'll be watching you

That is so cool, Ive been saying this for years, and I also think that the oil is more like an lubricant to the tectonic plates.

Maybe why we have more quakes as we pump up the oil..

reply to post by ChemBreather


You absolutely DO NOT want any kind of lubricant on a plate boundry! lol. We would have more earthquakes than we do.
Convection currents created by the spinning of the earths core act like a conveyor belt are what move the plates. The forces produced are more than ample to bypass any need for lubricant lol.
There have however been cases where a kind of lubricant has leached into the local rock and reactivated old faultlines. One i remember reading about happened in the USA in an underground chemical dump. Some of the chemicals leached, lubricating an old faultplain and caused a few earthquakes. But plate tectonics need no lubricants, the forces involved overide any need for them!

[edit on 013030p://f12Tuesday by Selahobed]

it seem this thread has ignited a war between the college graduates, scientists, and professionals against those who know little but think a lot. those with facts and those with logic. those who talk and those who do. the educated against the uneducated. i am uneducated. since i am uneducated, i will not get technical, i only have a simple question. i am not going to link you to a site and consider it my foundation because in this thread, i have seen the ultimate futility of a higher education.

my question is, how is it that we can create diamonds in labs, a process which take billions of years, but we can't replicate petroleum? they both form beneath our feet, one deeper than the other, one is more complex than the other. both can be abiotic. why can't we? single cell organism feces is the ebst we can do, still, it's not our creation. why can't we? and if we can't, do we really know as much as we claim to know? i think not.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by DOADOA]

reply to post by mckyle


Yes, the copy and pasters really get annoyed when their "expertise" is questioned

Oil is an Abiotic process.

www.greatamericanjournal.com...


climateresearchnews.com...

It was in 1757 that the great Russian scholar Mikhailo V. Lomonosov enunciated the hypothesis that oil might originate from biological detritus. The scientists who first rejected Lomonsov�s hypothesis, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were the famous German naturalist and geologist Alexander von Humboldt and the French chemist and thermodynamicist Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac, who together enunciated the proposition that oil is a primordial material erupted from great depth, and is unconnected with any biological matter near the surface of the Earth.

To recapitulate, Stalin�s team of scientists and engineers found that oil is not a �fossil fuel� but is a natural product of planet earth � the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide � two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth�s crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately 50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of approximately 1500�C, and will continue more or less until the �death� of planet earth in millions of years� time. The high pressure causes oil to continuously seep up along fissures in the earth�s crust into subterranean caverns, which we call oil fields. Oil is still being produced in great abundance, and is a sustainable resource � by the same definition that makes geothermal energy a sustainable resource. What we need to do is develop better geotechnical science, and better educated and trained geotechnical engineers and scientists, to predict where it is and learn how to drill down deep enough to get to it.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Realtruth]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Realtruth]

reply to post by DOADOA


We can and do in a way, fermentation of organic matter. But i prefer to drink it lol

Originally posted by polar
reply to post by Solenki

 

Jerome Corsi: Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. His latest best-seller was The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. He is a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.com and the author of two books on contemporary Iran: Atomic Iran and Showdown with Nuclear Iran. In his 2005 book Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, which he co-authored with Craig. R. Smith, Dr. Corsi predicted oil prices at over $100 a barrel.
[edit on 16-11-2009 by polar]

This is a joke right? So, a guy who has a background in political science is an expert in the formation of oil, and he should be believed over the opinions of actual experts in geology?

You'll also note that his record is characteristic of a far-right activist.
1. His own personal agenda seems to be downplaying the negatives of fossil fuels in order to delay or hinder the introduction of cleaner alternatives. (Neocons are owned by the oil companies and paid to fight any change that might negatively affect their profit margin).
2. He works for World Net Daily, which is possibly the least objective "news" source I have ever found. They dedicated a significant amount of time to the Birther cause, validated his birth certificate themselves for one story, and then later claimed that Obama still hasn't released it.
3. He is perpetuating a perceived threat from Iran in order to sell a future military conflict with the country that would only serve to benefit defense contractors and the Israeli government.
4. As for predicting that Oil prices would go up, who hasn't predicted that, especially considering the oil shortage in the 1970s had already come to pass. Here's my prediction - a hurricane is going to hit the gulf cost at some point in the next five years.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by andrewh7]

This is humorous.

I watched a Saudi oil company owner on I believe was MSNBC. Facts he tried to hammer were: This was a year, maybe year+half ago..

1: Saudi country driven by fuel. Buy less fuel the the profits which truly drives the entire country and it's public from the day to day.

2: There was enough oil to keep up with the upcoming 20 years without an end in site.

3: quit worrying and speculating oil.. it's there, here's the cool trillion dollar plant we're currently constructing that's a large city unto itself.

b

Originally posted by DOADOA
my question is, how is it that we can create diamonds in labs, a process which take billions of years, but we can't replicate petroleum? they both form beneath our feet, one deeper than the other, one is more complex than the other. both can be abiotic. why can't we?
[edit on 17-11-2009 by DOADOA]

My question is why it is above and beyond your efforts to do a one second google search for synthetic fuel? Seriously, you logged into this site, found this forum, and finally typed out a response. You apparently have at least a rudimentary understanding of the Internet.

Synthetic Fuel

Using commercially proven industrial processes, quantities of synthetic transportation fuels can be produced from non-oil fossil and biomass resources. These fuels can be produced in a manner that reduces life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, while building forwards-compatible renewable fuels infrastructure. Synthetic fuels are one of the few economically viable and industrially scalable alternatives to petroleum capable of providing a major source of the liquid transportation fuels required to run the economy, and the only known non-petroleum source of aviation fuel. July 2009 worldwide commercial synthetic fuels production capacity is over 240,000 barrels per day (38,000 m3/d), with numerous new projects in construction or development.

We've been producing artificial fuel from coal since 1913. Famously, the Nazis subsisted largely on synthetic fuel during World War II.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by andrewh7]

reply to post by Selahobed


Sounds like plan, but I still think the oil have a purpose other than just being there.

It's like an gearbox, if you take out the oil and fill it with water, the gearbox wouldnt work all that well.

Any who's, this shows again that the PTB are telling untruths to keep the oil prises up, but spooking the herds with 'not much oil left' scenarios..

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by DOADOA
my question is, how is it that we can create diamonds in labs, a process which take billions of years, but we can't replicate petroleum? they both form beneath our feet, one deeper than the other, one is more complex than the other. both can be abiotic. why can't we?
[edit on 17-11-2009 by DOADOA]

My question is why it is above and beyond your efforts to do a one second google search for synthetic fuel? Seriously, you logged into this site, found this forum, and finally typed out a response. You apparently have at least a rudimentary understanding of the Internet.

Synthetic Fuel

Using commercially proven industrial processes, quantities of synthetic transportation fuels can be produced from non-oil fossil and biomass resources. These fuels can be produced in a manner that reduces life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, while building forwards-compatible renewable fuels infrastructure. Synthetic fuels are one of the few economically viable and industrially scalable alternatives to petroleum capable of providing a major source of the liquid transportation fuels required to run the economy, and the only known non-petroleum source of aviation fuel. July 2009 worldwide commercial synthetic fuels production capacity is over 240,000 barrels per day (38,000 m3/d), with numerous new projects in construction or development.

We've been producing artificial fuel from coal since 1913. Famously, the Nazis subsisted largely on synthetic fuel during World War II.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by andrewh7]

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?

do you need me to simplify? if you do, i can make this easier to understand. petroleum, non-petroleum, they are two different fuel. in my post, i am asking for petroleum. non- petroleum mean that it is not petroleum. replace the N in non with a T and you get not or ton, we're going to us the word "not" and not "ton". so if you use the word not before petroleum in a sentence, it mean that the product is not petroleum. do you want me to make this easier? just ask.

I have a friend whos father works offshore in Norway. He laughed his arse off when i asked about this stuff, if we're out of oil in a few years.

He told me its just something the bosses or whoever say, there is enough oil down there to last, if not for ever, a LOOONG time.

reply to post by mckyle

And others.

Yeah, I am not an engineer. /s A&P Mechanic w/Bachelors in Maintenance Engineering Parks College of St Louis University 3.26 GPA

Yeah, I know everything, just like everyone on this thread. /s

Yeah, do not even look at the evidence I presented, just bury your head, because you know everything. /s

Yeah, I have never read anything. /s At least someone looked up my reference to Adams, I just referenced it by memory. For your info, I have read more books in my first 10 years than most have read in 50 years.(You know who I am speaking to, if you can read this)

I guess the Carnegie Institute of Science is some quack outfit and the scientists their are morons.

I never once said that oil's main creation of oil is not biotic in nature.

Yes, I do know about the migration of the ocean's floors flowing in a continuous circle. Thereby carrying the largest supply of dead life forms below the plates. The ocean floor is the main supply of the creation of oil. The quantity of plankton lining the floor of the ocean is enormous.

And this thread delves into rants by sudo back slappers thinking they know better than everyone else.

Knowledge comes from the free sharing of ideas.

But since all of you know everything, I guess we no longer need the supposed scientists anymore. We will just listen to all of you.

Edit to add-My rants, all you did on this whole fracking thread is attack, obfuscate, and back slap each other.

At least solensk actually knew about the evidence I posted, but keep denying anything put in front of your face.



[edit on 11/17/2009 by endisnighe]

ppl are talking about that if the oil was lubricating the plates we would have more earthquakes. In fact it is the opposite of what they are thinking. The oil will act as a lubricant reducing the jerks of the plates. It is these plate jerks that causes earthquakes. By oiling these plates they can rub pass each other quite smoothly greatly reducing any sudden movements.
There is a fine example of this off the american east coast in the mid atlantic ridge. This place is riddled with mud volcanoes which act as lubricant for this area and its the primary reason why this area rarely gets earthquakes

[edit on 17-11-2009 by loner007]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by loner007]

J'ai l'impression que depuis quelques temps cela devient une tendance et une sorte de "mode" que de vouloir trouver des complots partout où il peut en exister et plus particulièrement dans les faits scientifiques. Comme s'il fallait trouver le moyen de prouver que toute les recherches effectuées ces 100 dernières années n'étaient que pour mentir à la population.
C'est d'autant plus triste quand cela touche à des domaines que l'on pratique, j'ai moi même vu et effectué des analyses sur des systèmes pétroliers, c'est pour cela que toutes ces fausses informations m'énervent au plus au point.

I'll try to translate this as accurate as possible, because it's a very important thing you're saying

Translation of above quote:
I've come to the impression that, for some time now, it has become a tendency and a fashionable thing to search for conspiracies where possible, in particular on subjects where scientific facts are presented. Like someone has found a way to prove that all scientific research and facts presented for the past 100 years where only created to keep the population ignorant and in control. It's especially sad when you're a practicing scientist yourself and you've effectively worked on an analysis concerning petroleum systems. It's because of this that misinformation angers me so much.
End of translation

Once any organic matter starts to break down oil or hydrocarbons are one of the basic products it will reach. This DOES NOT mean that breaking down of dinasaurs is the only way to produce oil. Infact as the OP stated there are hydrocarbons in other places in the solar system. Hydrocarbons do not mean oil. Oil is a genberal term used to describe crude oil that is found on earth. Hydrocarbons cover a much larger range of compounds formed largely of carbon hydrogen and oxygen and they even include alchol.
Previous life is not a requirement for the production of hydrocarbons
Carbon is plentiful in our solar system. It was formed as a by product of a star dying billions of years ago. Infact all the carbon in our bodies was once part of this star. Our sun fuses hydrogen into helium. Once the hydrogen dies out the helium will fuse into heavier elements like carbon.
That is how carbon is produced.
Hydrogen is one of the most simplest elements in nature. it is usually one proton and one electron.
This hydrogen is produced by larger elements breaking in stars and releasing some protons and other 'junk' particles which form together to form hydrogen.
Our bodies are carbon based. this means that we are made of hydrocarbons ie compounds of carbon hydrogen oxygen etc.
When we die our bodies break down into compounds even simpler than basic dna which further break down into hydrocarbons we call oil.
That is why there is no dna found in oil. Simply because even the dna molicule is formed of hydrocarbons and it breaks down back into them.

For hydrocarbons to be spontaniously form inside the earth we would need Atleast
1)carbon
2)hydrogen
3)oxygen
4)other elements like nitrogen depending on the compound.
These elements were found in bodies of plants and animal and they thus break down into oil.
Trouble is that most o0f the carbon on earth has been used up to form organic compounds. There is no fresh source of carbon on our planet.
All the carbon we use from charcoal to graphite inside pencils to diamonds all originated from some plant or animal.
The reason for this is that pure elemental carbon is not very stable and tends to react with other elements.
Therefore the only way for oil to be produced in such large quantities is the decomposition and further breaking down of hydrocarbons found inside animals.
Even if hydrocarbons are being produced inside the earth by some other unknown process(however unlikely) the production rate is far to slow to meet up with our usage rates.
Pretending that oil comes from other sources will not solve any porblem what Will solve problems is using less energy and figuring out alternative methods of producing oil from the abundant carbon based waste we produce everyday.

reply to post by DOADOA


First off artificial diamonds are produced by attempting to replicate the conditions found underground. Second they are nowhere near a real diamond which is why they are so cheap compared to the real thing.
third a diamond is not a compound of carbon but rather elemental carbon with the molicules forming a crystaline lattice.
As for fuel it is possible to produce compounds that can replace fuel trouble is producing them in the vast quantities we use. Do you have ANY idea as to how much fuel we burn everyday? Now imagine trying to mass produce such large quantaties.
Also synthetic fuels will not pop out of thin air. they still require raw materials to make and the whole process will work out More expencive than mining oil and using them will Still pollute the enviorment.
LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT! THERE IS NO MIRICLE CURE!
It boils down to this.
If you wanna save money use a diesel engine with cooking oil. Way cheaper then buying fuel.(YES a diesel engine is fully capable or running by just pouring used cooking oil in your tank) Just head down to mcdonalds and ask them for used cooking oil. They pay people to take it away! Filter it and pour it in your tank and you are done

If you wanna save the enviorment use as little energy as possible and go buy an electric car. Once you do that never throw away your batteries and stop using dairy products because cows cause more global warming than cars.

People will find a conspiricy wherever they look. too much information is the blessing and curse of the internet.
Read thje information but take it with a pinch of salt.
And to some people on this thread: Please for gods sake at least do SOME form of rudementary research before posting your wikiwisdom.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by raptorinvictus]

Also to clear things up.
No we are not running out of oil tomorrow. nor the day after or even for the next hundred years.
BUT it is a limited resource and using it pollutes the air.
the only problem is that we are also using up a HUGE amount of oil and we have a hard time keeping up with demands.
Making people pay more for fuel may well be a political ploy but it is based in reality.
We may never see the day oil runs out but your grandkids might.
Also high oil prices keep a control on the usage of oil and helps keep the air a little cleaner.

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.