From what I know "OIL" be it the source of plastics, lubricants and notibly petroleum is known to be a "resource" that is surely running out. But is that necessarily a bad thing, Well yes if all your money was made from oil fields or all your funds are tied up in petroleum. The reality is that "OIL" is not as necessary as it once was. It's now possible to make "OILs" from the growth of particular Pollenous Flowers as well as a number of other Plants that can be used. The Oils in fact can work just as well as that of Desiel in the sense that there has to be some heat applied to increase it's constituancy. [This is notible from recent cases in the UK, where the Customs and Excise agents were out in force stopping people filling their desiel car's up on a mixture of "Used" cooking oil and Methalated spirits for the pure reason that people were using oil to get around the "taxation" on petroleum.] This means that there is no reason for oil crisises and no reason to fight over oil fields (Other than using a Tsun Tzu tactic of "using the enemies resources to starve their troops and feed your own, rather than having to 'transport' your own resources." In fact this tactic allowed Armies to travel deeper into enemy territory since you didn't need to "supply your troops", this in turn though caused such things as "War crimes" since retreating armies would loot and pillage to stop advancing armies use that tactic). On the subjects of landfill: If you could "containerise" the biodegrading mass and enduce heat so that chemical reactions occur, you could cause the matter to brake down into an oil like substance. (Which could be spead up if the waste put on the landfill was shreaded first.) There would how ever be an increase in fumes (gas pressure) which would need "Flaring" (rather than venting, otherwise you end up polluting the atmosphere with CxHx, CH4, COx, H2S, NO, NOx etc.) The gases can how ever be used for GAS POWER REGENERATION, Namely you burn the gas to drive a turbine, the exhaust is used to heat water to create steam to drive a steam turbine, and what ever is left is flared to help remove pollutants. BTW, Landfills produce gas without being "confined", but they need to be Drained properly as if they aren't drained properly then they can cause "GAS MIGRATION" which can be potentially dangerous as it can pocket in nearby buildings and explode. Another danger is if a landfill isn't leachated correctly, Waste water draining from the biodegrading mass might pollute rivers and drinking water if the landfill hasn't been managed correctly. (Okay, so I know about that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Check the www.epa.gov and www.environment-agency.gov.uk websites.
I have question for the "oil fields are refilling" people. What exactly qualifies for an oil resevoir that has become refilled? Do they give up drilling and come back to find more? What exactly do they do to find that a resevoir has refilled itself?
I'm not sure how to answer your questions, but when they say "Oil fields are refilling", they just mean Oil that has seeped into the bedrock is taking the place of a depressurised cavity. It will not "refill" completely, and will eventually become completely drained and probably decrease the density of the bedrock which might have seizmic consequences.
I'm curious as to what the guy who wrote the paper qualifies as an oil resevoir refilling itself. Most oil resevoirs that have ever been pumped are nowhere near being empty, most are hardly depleted over 50% (number may be a bit off). Many times because pressure is lost in the basin or it becomes too uneconomical to produce from a certian well. So I'm wondering if the reason why people say that oil resevoirs have refilled themselves is because they believe that companies may abandon a particular well and come back in a few years when it becomes economically productive to produce the oil? or how do they believe it happens besides coming from "the magical underground oil machine." Edufer, you speak of Gallileo and other scientists from the past couple hundred years. In that time it was more likely that a scientific discovery would not be accepted by humanity because it was believed to be so far out. That is because true science was not widely known by the public. These days most people at least know some basics about science. Also it's highly unprobable that mind blowing discoveries are going to be made that change science as we know it. I doubt that this Dr. Gold has made some earthshattering discovery that says that oil doesn't come from where we currently believe it to come from. It's highly unprobable. And from reading his work with all the crazy ass numbers about him mining past the crust of the earth among many other crazy numbers, I seriously doubt his competence as an "academician", as you put it.
I strongly recommend you to read this web page, written by Dr. Gold himself, about his book and his theory, where you’ll find anything you want to debunk him. Then come back and tell us what is your new opinion. http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/ BTW, he <B>IS</B> an academician, as shown by his collection of awards for his scientific and academic work. But, of course, you could easily have a different opinion. Matter is, you have to prove that your opinion has some reasonable ground...
I read the last web page with a story written by him. It was ludicrous. Did you read that web page and read what I wrote about it? I think that is where most of my argument lies.
Yes, but the only "scientific" arguments provided for debunking Dr. Gold was "I doubt that this Dr. Gold has made some earth-shattering discovery that says that oil doesn't come from where we currently believe it to come from. It's highly unprobable. And from reading his work with all the crazy ass numbers about him mining past the crust of the earth among many other crazy numbers, I seriously doubt his competence as an "academician", as you put it." We have no use for personal opinions. We need a good and scientifically based argument. Try again.
I was referring to a post I made before these. It is a long post, I don't see how you could have passed over it. Here are a few quotes from that post of mine. --------------- "The temperatures and pressures required to form diamonds begin at depths of 70 miles." That's a helluva a long way down there. I think it's even past the Moho region. And that is a long way for diamonds to be pushed up to the surface, a few thousand feet is understandable, but not 70 miles. --------------- "In 1906, Gold and his Swedish and American colleagues drilled holes reaching nearly 5 miles down from the impact interior. The idea was to penetrate the lower crust, and possibly the upper mantle." Whoa, I thought he said that a couple hundred miles down was a good place for hydrocarbons, and yet here he's drilling down 5 miles into the upper mantle. Holy shit those are some super-combustion proof hydrocarbons that chill in molten metal. ----------- and so on.. but read the whole thing before you try to tell me that they aren't good scientific arguments. Thank you.
Hydrocarbon near the surface of the earth or commercially viable has been converted from abiotic pre generated abiotic seepage hydrocarbons and has been reburied after mixing with the organic matter from the surface of the earth. OM has just been mixed in these abiotic seepage hydrocarbons and has nothing to produce it. sureshbansal342@gmail.com
No, but we can extract methane from it, which is nearly as good. Currently this is used at source, to drive gas engines or gas turbines for electricity production. Sometimes the waste heat can also be used, in a cogeneration, or Combined Heat and Power (CHP) arrangement. All of which enables more liquid fuel to be reserved for transport, which is the application for which it is hardest to find a good replacement.
Resurrecting dead posts I see. Necro dancing with the past isn't a very good thing for you could have just started a new post about this subject, couldn't you have? I mean a 10 year old post, come on!
Steady on. The statements about diamond formation are quite right. Check Wiki. Diamonds come up in volcanic pipes that indeed lead from the upper mantle, at around 150-200km depth. By the way, the molten metal core of the Earth only starts at a depth of around 3,000km below the surface. The mantle is composed of metal silicate rocks, mostly solid under the prevailing pressures, but which can melt where the temperature is higher than usual compared to the pressure, or where the minerals are altered (e.g. by water trapped in subducted crust) to forms with lower melting points. These form so-called zones of partial melting, which tend to well up as diapirs and create volcanism. I do agree though, that is hard to see how, at the temperatures prevailing at depth of 70km or more, it can be possible for liquid hydrocarbon to avoid being cracked into carbon and methane. Does Gold address this?
If you look at the work being done to explain the origins of life on earth, the first step is turning simple gases into precursors like animo acids, etc., There are many scenarios such as we can form precursors from H20, C02 and N2, using lightning. Experiments as far back as the 1950's were already showing that resinous solids were forming. The formation processes behind the precursors of life, could have made petroleum precursors for hundreds of millions of years before life finally appears. Then life slowly infiltrates to get credit for doing it all.
Haha yes it's a fair cop. I can only plead confusion, caused by my chronic inability to come to terms with the US convention for specifying dates.
Actually, it can be. I've had plans floating around in my head for 15 or 20 years for converting waste into crude oil. Sadly, like so many other good ideas I have had over the years, some other bugger with resources has beaten me to it. The process is called thermal depolymerization. My plans were a little more involved than the Carthage plant. I also has plans for a floating refinery that sat in the north pacific gyre, sucking back seawater and plastics, producing crude oil, fresh water and mineral salts using a combination of solar thermal and OTEC for energy.
Trippy Don't give up , try to talk , discuss , your ideas with these people , you never know , I would river
That's interesting. However, at the risk of appearing to be a wet blanket, I'm not sure it is worth it, at least so long as liquid fossil fuel continues to be used for power generation. So long as this is the case, landfill can do its bit via methane, by displacing liquid fuel from powergen and making it available for transport. By the way this also mops up a potent greenhouse gas and adds less to CO² emissions than burning liquid fuel.
Not the only idea along similar lines I've had. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of using landfill gas to co-generate (I work for the equivalent of the USEPA monitoring discharge permits, one of which was for a landfil that was co-generating). I just happen to think that Landfills represent a potential resource.
I agree. I've long thought that future generations would be able to 'mine' our landfills for metals, plastics, etc. The energy of clean-burning of the plastic/wood alone would be more than enough to smelt out the metals. Question: Whatever happened to all of the single-celled algae that have oil as their food-storage, after they died and settled to the bottom of waters? Their descendants today live in abundance in the fresh and ocean waters.
We have strong chemical analysis that there is a direct link between the oil reservoir and organic rich source rock. we have strong evidence that hydrocarbons has been linked with living organism but we do not have any strong evidence that source rock is a mixture of mud+organic matter only because infect it is a mixture of mud+organic matter+pre generated abiotic hydrocarbons ( once these HC were present on the surface of the earth and has been reburied after mixing with the OM ). we are getting nothing near those sediments which has been formed without any involvement of pre generated abiotic HCs. this is the onlu possible model that can reconcile the strong evidences by the both the current theories that Abiotic HCs has been seep down from the surface once present on the surface.please note current fossil oil theory can never be correct as it do not reconcile the valid evidence of abiotic theory. sureshbansal342@gmail.com
