Oil Not From Organic Materials
illuminex
Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">According to Russians</div> <a href='http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin' target='_blank'>Whoa.</a>
The ramifications of Abiogenic Petroleum are rather disturbing. Oil is then, essentially, a pretty much unlimited resource.
Which of course means that I've wasted a lot of time and energy talking to people about Peak Oil.
Sad.
I still hope we can get away from oil and into healthier and more powerful technologies (like focus fusion.)
Oh yeah, discuss.
The ramifications of Abiogenic Petroleum are rather disturbing. Oil is then, essentially, a pretty much unlimited resource.
Which of course means that I've wasted a lot of time and energy talking to people about Peak Oil.
Sad.
I still hope we can get away from oil and into healthier and more powerful technologies (like focus fusion.)
Oh yeah, discuss.
Comments
I wanted to get that in asap, I'll comment in a minute.
Duh. Actually <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=thermal+depolymerization' target='_blank'>thermal depolymerization</a> proved <s>this</s> (that oil can be made en mass easily from other sources) years ago. (and I'm pretty sure there is a test factory currently doing Phase II on the project) I don't know of a single respectable scientist who would argue that oil is a limited resource. There are many ways to make oil.
Thermal depolymerization os particularly intriguing because you also solve the issues of trash accumulation. The US could become the lead <a href='http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0824706.html' target='_blank'>hydrocarbon</a> producer in the world as we have the largest agricultural system and most mass of landfill trash. We could be literally mining our landfills for fuel.
The only reason we haven't is because importing oil from OPEC is ~$2.5/gal cheaper and the Amercian public would compalin if they saw $120 bills evertime they filled up that big SUV.
<span style='color:gray'>So in conclusion while it <i>is</i> absolutely possible it still boils down to basic macroeconomics.</span>
~edit2~
Interesting topic. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanx illuminex.
hmm this requires additional research... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, if oil is created abiotically, then the Atheistic scientists are in for a real run for their money. If the earth is producing oil at even a percentage of the speed that it looks like oil is being produced, then theoretically the earth is really quite young. Perhaps in the thousands of years?
But that's for another thread, I suppose.
If oil were generated automatically via some internal process, then chances are it's far, <i>far</i> slower than we use it up. Think about how many billions of years Earth has been around (5?) Let's even just consider, for the sake of arguement, that oil has only been generated in the last million years. How many years did it take us to use most of it up? Around 200. There is no way the earth can catch up to us at this rate. It cannot possibly be our primary energy source.
Plus there's the other big issue, pollution. If oil was made from magma, the only way we're going to sink that carbon/sulfur/etc. back into the system is by injecting it deep into the earth. Right now, pretty much all of it goes into the air. If life didn't create the oil, than chances are very, very good that it won't be able to sink it all without catastrophic side effects.
Here's what I think is the most damning evidence against abiogenic oil creation:<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the chemistry of magma does not compare to the chemistry of hydrocarbons. Magma is lacking in carbon compounds, and hydrocarbons are lacking in silicates. If hydrocarbons were generated from magma, then you would expect to see some closer kinship in their chemistry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (from the link above). That's pretty solid.
<a href='http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmartin/petroleum_geology/origin.html' target='_blank'>Here, have some more chemistry.</a>
While it is certainly possible and likely that some oil has been generated abiogenically, it does not seem that it is true of any significant number of commercially viable deposits.
I don't care if we can get another 100 years out of oil. We need to find better solutions <i>yesterday</i>.
And ill, what are you talking about with Athiestic scientists? Neither side is debating (from anything I've seen) that Earth is less than many millions of years old.
Oh no, I wasn't talking specifically about the people debating this, I was simply referring to the ramification if this was true, one of which would be the possibility that the earth is far less than a million years old.
But we'll wait until more information regarding the earth producing oil before we really head down that road.
And yes, I'm 125% for us moving beyond oil. There are simply better technologies starting to crop up all over the world that need to be investigated and advanced upon.
In fact, Methane is the reason that Uranus has a blue-green hue to it as the methane absorbs red light.
I am not a hydrocarbon chemist, but it does interest me as to how Hydrocarbons can form from non organic sources.
Earth's core is made up of mainly nickel and iron. (labeled inner and outer by their fluidity attributes) Above the core is Earth's mantle which is made up of rock containing silicon, iron, magnesium, aluminum, oxygen and other minerals. The rocky surface layer of Earth, called the crust is made up of mostly oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium. Earth's surface is mainly covered with liquid water and its atmosphere is is mainly nitrogen and oxygen, with smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, water vapor and other gases.
Magma doesn't make oil; it'd have to be a operation of the crust involving pockets of carbon and hydrogen rich compounds. Yes new oil is being made all the time but it's not as fast as you all might think and actually there is more of the lighter hydrocarbons like methane (CH4) than octane (C8H18; what gasoline is mostly made of).
New fossil fuels are being made constantly, but we are removign them faster than they are made. illuminex click: <a href='http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm' target='_blank'>easy reading</a>
I haven't been able to see how an abiogenic theory can make the transition from hydrogen rich fuels to lighter fuels like methane and petroleum without microbial life.
Cratering record on the moon? Hello? The moon exhibits billions of years of cratering, and the moon is composed of the same stuff that the earth is.
The REASON for this is because another planet smacked into proto-earth billions of years ago, forming the moon. The whole planet was MOLTEN. If the earth is only thousands of years old then why the hell is the moon a good deal older then the earth when it's made of the same stuff? It's highly unlikely that the earth just **popped** into existence and captured the moon off hand when it would far more likely that they would have disrupted each others orbits catastrophically.
And if you can discount the cratering record on the moon, you'll have to discredit it for mars, callisto, ganymede, triton, mercury and venus and even then micrometeorite bombardment that has smoothed out the moons surface over said billions of years (any faster would have resulted in spacecraft erosion).
Cratering record on the moon? Hello? The moon exhibits billions of years of cratering, and the moon is composed of the same stuff that the earth is.
The REASON for this is because another planet smacked into proto-earth billions of years ago, forming the moon. The whole planet was MOLTEN. If the earth is only thousands of years old then why the hell is the moon a good deal older then the earth when it's made of the same stuff? It's highly unlikely that the earth just **popped** into existence and captured the moon off hand when it would far more likely that they would have disrupted each others orbits catastrophically.
And if you can discount the cratering record on the moon, you'll have to discredit it for mars, callisto, ganymede, triton, mercury and venus and even then micrometeorite bombardment that has smoothed out the moons surface over said billions of years (any faster would have resulted in spacecraft erosion). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not an appropriate side topic to this thread. The old earth/new earth debate is a lenghty one with both sides quoting masses of evidence for thier side and not really explaining the evidence produced by the other side. Realisticly nither side really proves anything in the end and people just end up mad at eachother, so dicuss the stupid topic if you must, but for the love of God keep it firmly sealed in its own friggin thread.
Peak oil means the end of <b>cheap</b> oil. Not oil alltogether.
Which means you can say goodbye to your $.90 a litre petrol.
--Scythe--
Duh. Actually <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=thermal+depolymerization' target='_blank'>thermal depolymerization</a> proved <s>this</s> (that oil can be made en mass easily from other sources) years ago. (and I'm pretty sure there is a test factory currently doing Phase II on the project) I don't know of a single respectable scientist who would argue that oil is a limited resource. There are many ways to make oil.
Thermal depolymerization os particularly intriguing because you also solve the issues of trash accumulation. The US could become the lead <a href='http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0824706.html' target='_blank'>hydrocarbon</a> producer in the world as we have the largest agricultural system and most mass of landfill trash. We could be literally mining our landfills for fuel.
The only reason we haven't is because importing oil from OPEC is ~$2.5/gal cheaper and the Amercian public would compalin if they saw $120 bills evertime they filled up that big SUV.
<span style='color:gray'>So in conclusion while it <i>is</i> absolutely possible it still boils down to basic macroeconomics.</span>
~edit2~
Interesting topic. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanx illuminex.
hmm this requires additional research... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't be sure, but I think my Chemistry teacher from last year helped work on that tech at Gulf Oil. Lab-grown diesel fuel at $5 a gallon.
Combine that with the electric/gas hybrids we're seeing now, and it works out to about the same price per gallon.
ANYHOO... can someone explain to me how a renewable oil source that we've only recently tapped into directly proves that the earth is only a few thousand years old?
ANYHOO... can someone explain to me how a renewable oil source that we've only recently tapped into directly proves that the earth is only a few thousand years old? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
NO NO NO, THIS IS A DEAD TOPIC, BRING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE!
It was just irrational grumblings, read the post again or ignore it compleatly, no more talking about old earth/new earth.