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.
Titan more closely resembles Earth than any other planet or moon in our solar system, with a dense atmosphere and stable liquids on its surface. But Titan's clouds, lakes and rain are made up of hydrocarbons, such as ethane and methane, rather than water.
Other than Earth, Titan is the only other world in the solar system that appears to have stable bodies of liquid on its surface, except on this distant moon because surface temperatures are a nippy – 290 degrees Fahrenheit, the liquids here are not water but hydrocarbon.
Recent images of Titan from NASA’s Cassini spacecraft affirm the presence of lakes of liquid hydrocarbons by capturing changes in the lakes brought on by rainfall.
According to new Cassini data, Saturns largest moon, Titan, has “hundreds” times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the liquid fossil fuel depositson Earth. This is impressive as Titan’s 5150 km diameter is only about 50% larger than Earth’s Moon and only a little larger than the planet Mercury. Titan’s hydrocarbons cycle into the atmosphere, fall as rain and collect in lakes creating massive lakes and dunes.
Propylene, the key ingredient in household plastic containers, has been discovered in the atmosphere of Saturn's smoggy moon Titan — marking more firsts for planetary science.
It's the first time this particular hydrocarbon has been detected on a world beyond Earth, and it's the first new molecule to be identified by the Cassini orbiter's Composite Infrared Spectrometer. Similar hydrocarbons were found by NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft in 1980, leading scientists to wonder why they weren't seeing the propylene.
Voyager had detected two chemicals in Titan's atmosphere that are closely related to propylene — propane and propyne — but its instruments weren't sensitive enough to find the propylene.
So hydrocarbons on earth may not, in fact, be comprised of ancient jungles full of lizards
Petroleum geologists agree that oil originates from vast quantities of dead marine plankton or plant material that sank into the mud of shallow seas. Under the resulting anaerobic conditions, organic compounds remained in a reduced state where anaerobic bacteria converted the lipids (fats, oils and waxes) into a waxy substance called kerogen.
As the source rock was buried deeper, overburden pressure raised temperatures into the oil window, between 80 and 180 °C. Most of the organic compounds degraded into the straight-chain hydrocarbons that comprise most of petroleum. This process is called the generation kitchen.
Once crude oil formed, it became very fluid and migrated upward through the rock strata. This process is called oil expulsion. Eventually it was either trapped in an oil reservoir or oil escaped to the surface and was biodegraded by soil bacteria.
Oil buried deeper entered the "gas window" of more than 160 °C and was converted into natural gas by thermal cracking. This gives the prediction that only unassociated gas and not oil will be found below a certain depth. At greater depths, even natural gas would be pyrolyzed.
Which means Earth's reserves may not be "vast sinks" of "trapped" CO² gas that used to be in the atmosphere,
Western geologists and scientists find the theory either annoying or amusing and refuse to consider it seriously although there are exceptions. The theory continues to be held in much higher regard by Russian scientists and geologists...
Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory....
A research team at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, led by Vladimir Kutherov, demonstrated that animal and plant fossils are not necessary for producing oil and natural gas. The team simulated the thermal and pressure processes that occur in the inner layers of the earth to generate hydrocarbons, the chief component of oil and natural gas. The team also noted that oil and gas has been found 7 miles below ground in Texas and fossil oil and gas could not, via, gravity have seeped down to such depths.....
An abiogenic theory of petroleum is not new, dating from the 16th century .In the 19th century two very accomplished scientists, Alexander von Humboldt and Dimitri Mendeleev( of the Periodic Table fame) advanced the concept. In the 20th century the Russian- Ukrainian School of geology emerged in the Soviet Union to vigorously formulate the modern theory of abiogenic oil and gas....
The matrix of scientific, political and business interests in the West, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil (an emerging oil exporter of consequence) and Venezuela that refuses to countenance abiogenic theories is big and potent. These interests want oil and gas to be scarce and expensive for a variety of reasons. It is natural and understandable that no credible test of the theory will be attempted within the ambit of these interests.....
Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.
If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.
I said short and simple though, so here it is:
There are complex hydrocarbons on Titan
There are more liquid hydrocarbons on the surface of Titan than in all the known reserves of Earth
Titan is pre-biotic(has organics, but no organisms...that we know of)
This means Titan's hydrocarbons are pre-biotic
This means pre-biotic or abiotic hydrocarbons, long derided by mainstream science, are not only possible but are a fact
This means some or all of Earth's hydrocarbons may be abiotic
Which means hydrocarbon fuels are not necessarily comprised of ancient jungles full of lizards
Which means hydrocarbons are not "fossil" fuels
Which means they are not necessarily non-renewable
This has been known, or at least indicated, since the 1980s
...and yet everyone in the media and in academia have persisted in referring to Terran hydrocarbons as "fossil fuels"
Now here's where it starts to get fun.
So hydrocarbons on earth may not, in fact, be comprised of ancient jungles full of lizards
Which means Earth's reserves may not be "vast sinks" of "trapped" CO² gas that used to be in the atmosphere, back when the hydrocarbons in the reserves were still ancient jungles full of lizards
Which means the CO² that was in the atmosphere during the time of the ancient jungle lizards is still in it today for the most part
Which means the hothouse climates that existed during the time of the jungle lizards came and went without appreciable rises or drops in atmospheric CO²
Which means Carbon may not be as major a greenhouse gas at it is purported to be
Which is probably why they have persisted in calling them "fossil" fuels despite contradictory evidence for the past 33 years.
The hydrocarbons in crude oil are mostly alkanes, cycloalkanes and various aromatic hydrocarbons while the other organic compounds contain nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, and trace amounts of metals such as iron, nickel, copper and vanadium.
The alkanes from pentane (C5H12) to octane (C8H18) are refined into petrol, the ones from nonane (C9H20) to hexadecane (C16H34) into diesel fuel, kerosene and jet fuel. Alkanes with more than 16 carbon atoms can be refined into fuel oil and lubricating oil. At the heavier end of the range, paraffin wax is an alkane with approximately 25 carbon atoms, while asphalt has 35 and up, although these are usually cracked by modern refineries into more valuable products
theantediluvian
Allow me to deconstruct your disinformation:
1. Nobody actually questions that there are abiotic sources of hydrocarbons. For instance, methane (CH4) has been discovered on all of the planets and many moons. It does not follow that because some hydrocarbons are created by abiotic processes under some conditions that all sources of fuel composed of hydrocarbons must have also been created by abiotic processes. A series of statements, each on it's own line does not immediately constitute logic.
2. You're using the term "hydrocarbons" quite loosely: on Titan for instance, we're talking about lakes of methane and clouds of methane and ethane (C2H6). This is a far cry from crude oil which contains various mixtures of hydrocarbons along with a lot of other things (quotes from wikipedia) :
The hydrocarbons in crude oil are mostly alkanes, cycloalkanes and various aromatic hydrocarbons while the other organic compounds contain nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, and trace amounts of metals such as iron, nickel, copper and vanadium.
The alkanes from pentane (C5H12) to octane (C8H18) are refined into petrol, the ones from nonane (C9H20) to hexadecane (C16H34) into diesel fuel, kerosene and jet fuel. Alkanes with more than 16 carbon atoms can be refined into fuel oil and lubricating oil. At the heavier end of the range, paraffin wax is an alkane with approximately 25 carbon atoms, while asphalt has 35 and up, although these are usually cracked by modern refineries into more valuable products
As with crude oil, the composition of the various types of naturally occurring coal can similarly include any number of hydrocarbons.
So yeah, it's like comparing apples and apple pie.
3. Dinosaurs weren't lizards.
Also, the largest sources of coal are beds formed in the Carboniferous period (roughly 300-360 millions ago) or about 70 million years before the first dinosaurs. Coal and natural gas are formed mostly from ancient terrestrial plants--entire fossil forests have been found in coal seams. The bulk of petroleum actually started out as zooplankton, phytoplankton, and algae that was deposited on the bottom of ancient oceans and lakes.
That's just a start. The geology and chemistry behind the formation of fossil fuels is well understood, pretending something else is willful ignorance and from your repeated derisive use of the word "lizard" when referring to dinosaurs, should I imply religious belief looms largely in your hypothesis?
chiefsmom
You know, it's interesting, that one of the first threads I read when I found this sight, was about an oil deposit, that somehow was managing to refill itself.
intrptr
Petroleum geologists agree that oil originates from vast quantities of dead marine plankton or plant material that sank into the mud of shallow seas.
As the source rock was buried deeper, overburden pressure raised temperatures into the oil window, between 80 and 180 °C. Most of the organic compounds degraded into the straight-chain hydrocarbons that comprise most of petroleum. This process is called the generation kitchen.
The forests, swamps and ocean plant life are those "vast deposits" aren't they?
Thats how coal forms for Peats sake.
Not saying life exclusively made these oil deposits, but obviously it helped.
crimvelvet
The Russians think CAGW is a crock....
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory has predicted another Little Ice Age. From the early 90s, Dr Abdussamatov has observed bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth, which, he says, will result in the temperature starting to drop in approximately 2014. He expects the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of TSI in 2042±11, and the beginning of a Little Ice Age – the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.
They also think there is abiotic oil based on Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev abiotic hypothesis of petroleum in 1951.
Western geologists and scientists find the theory either annoying or amusing and refuse to consider it seriously although there are exceptions.
A research team at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, led by Vladimir Kutherov, demonstrated that animal and plant fossils are not necessary for producing oil and natural gas. The team simulated the thermal and pressure processes that occur in the inner layers of the earth to generate hydrocarbons, the chief component of oil and natural gas.
The team also noted that oil and gas has been found 7 miles below ground in Texas and fossil oil and gas could not, via gravity have seeped down to such depths.....
The matrix of scientific, political and business interests in the West, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil and Venezuela that refuses to countenance abiogenic theories is big and potent. These interests want oil and gas to be scarce and expensive for a variety of reasons. It is natural and understandable that no credible test of the theory will be attempted within the ambit of these interests.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crust_(geology)
en.wikipedia.org...(geology)
The oceanic crust of the sheet is different from its continental crust. The oceanic crust is 5 km (3 mi) to 10 km (6 mi) thick
And if you only meant to argue that oil and gas can form without biological influence, I agree with that, too. It obviously did on Titan. And elsewhere too. I imagine that huge asteroid impacts could generate such a "kitchen" and form all kinds of deposits.
If you only meant to argue that the biological formation of hydrocarbons is possible on earth and probably does take place, then we have no argument, sir.
You're using the term "hydrocarbons" quite loosely: on Titan for instance, we're talking about lakes of methane and clouds of methane and ethane (C2H6). This is a far cry from crude oil which contains various mixtures of hydrocarbons along with a lot of other things
AbleEndangered
They always say "Russian Propaganda"...
Then it can be easily dismissed!!...
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth....