Oil Without Dead Things Creating It?

[LiveLaughLove]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/11/horsehead-nebula-found-to-cloak-a-vast-interstellar-chemistry-lab.html

It seems there is massive oil refining going on in space and on moons and so probably on planets without living matter. As a former astrophysics major (which is kind of like being a former premed student I think), I found this to be very interesting, because I had long suspected it to be true. I do admit I had no basis for my belief. It has just always seemed completely odd to me how geologists try and describe how oil got in the Earth.

I have always believed it is more of a process deep in the Earth than dead things sinking into the Earth and somehow "cooking" and becoming crude oil.


The spectacular Horsehead Nebula in the Orion constellation is not only a favourite object of astronomy photographers all over the world, but apparently also a cosmic petroleum refinery.What sounds like science fiction is actually reality: using the 30m-telescope of the Institute for Radio Astronomy for astronomical observations in the millimetre range of wavelengths, astronomers have detected, for the first time, the interstellar molecule C3H+, in our galaxy, which belongs to the hydrocarbon family and is thus part of major energy resources of our planet, i.e. petroleum and natural gas.

"We observed the operation of a natural refinery of petroleum of gigantic size", said astronomer Jérôme Pety.
discovery of this molecule at the heart of the famous Horsehead Nebula in the Constellation of Orion also confirms that this region is an active cosmic refinery.

It seems an astronomy professor at Cornell named Thomas Gold wrote a book about how the Earth produces oil. He called it abiotic petroleum (it was actually a hypothesis put forth by Russian scientists in the late 40s or early 50s).

http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil-Fuels/dp/0387952535/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356622751&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+gold

Of course, this would have huge ramifications politically if it is true. Potentially unlimited oil? How long does it take to "cook" down there and seep up? Can we find ways to drill deeper and will we find even more? Or will it be too uncooked to use down there? Should we be looking for ways to exploit it rather than these "green" energies? And on and on.

[Petro-Sooner]

Hmmmmm. Interesting.

[olevetonahill]

Im not a geologist Nor a Petroleum expert. But I have held these beliefs for a long time myself.

[KantoSooner]

It's pretty well established that the major source of hydrocarbons on this planet are biologic in origin. In the case of peat/coal, you can actually see the plant matter with a low power magnifying glass.

Does that rule out abiotic origins for hydrocarbons? Not really. Of late, I recall a news item reporting that one 'planet' detected outside our solar system was likely composed mostly of diamond. An entire planet of diamond. Since diamond is simply another form of carbon, it wouldn't surprise me if carbon-based molecules were being produced elsewhere by novel processes.

But, even if that were so, it does not imply that such processes are at work on this planet.

Nor does it imply that any such processes are capable of replenshing reservoirs at a rate anywhere close to replacement of what we're taking out.

It is interesting, however.

[okie52]

It's pretty well established that the major source of hydrocarbons on this planet are biologic in origin. In the case of peat/coal, you can actually see the plant matter with a low power magnifying glass.

Does that rule out abiotic origins for hydrocarbons? Not really. Of late, I recall a news item reporting that one 'planet' detected outside our solar system was likely composed mostly of diamond. An entire planet of diamond. Since diamond is simply another form of carbon, it wouldn't surprise me if carbon-based molecules were being produced elsewhere by novel processes.

But, even if that were so, it does not imply that such processes are at work on this planet.

Nor does it imply that any such processes are capable of replenshing reservoirs at a rate anywhere close to replacement of what we're taking out.

It is interesting, however.

How would a "whole planet" have the pressure to become a diamond? Splitoff from another planet?

[Midtowner]

We need to be looking at technologies which don't release carbon into the atmosphere.

[okie52]

We need to be looking at technologies which don't release carbon into the atmosphere.

We haven't been doing that? Wind, Hydro, Solar, Geothermal? Of course there is actually a technology that has been around for about 70 years that doesn't release any carbon into the atmosphere and could supply a substantial portion of our energy needs but the party of science has blackballed it.

[LiveLaughLove]

It's pretty well established that the major source of hydrocarbons on this planet are biologic in origin. In the case of peat/coal, you can actually see the plant matter with a low power magnifying glass.

Does that rule out abiotic origins for hydrocarbons? Not really. Of late, I recall a news item reporting that one 'planet' detected outside our solar system was likely composed mostly of diamond. An entire planet of diamond. Since diamond is simply another form of carbon, it wouldn't surprise me if carbon-based molecules were being produced elsewhere by novel processes.

But, even if that were so, it does not imply that such processes are at work on this planet.

Nor does it imply that any such processes are capable of replenshing reservoirs at a rate anywhere close to replacement of what we're taking out.

It is interesting, however.

Interesting. So, we may have both going on?

I too read about that planet. Even told my wife that must be where woman Heaven is. :)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

This is where farts go.

[sappstuf]

We need to be looking at technologies which don't release carbon into the atmosphere.

Mother Earth releases more carbon in the atmosphere than we have ever dreamed of doing.

[KantoSooner]

I'm not sure exactly the mechanism proposed for the planet in question. I would guess that the pressures inside the gas clouds that surround young stars and precipitate into planets would be sufficient.

And, yes, we should be jamming on nuclear here. Chernobyl was the result of an insane moron without an engineering degree trying to show off what hairy nuts he had on a disaster test. Tepco was the result of a very old design being pushed way beyond design limits by a company managed by people who were able, through decades of political corruptioin, to elevate themselves above any rational regulatory oversight. Nuclear is pretty much proven and, on balance, safe.

[TAFBSooner]

I've heard of the abiotic theory before. At the time, it was claimed the Russians based most of their petroleum exploration on it.

[JohnnyMack]

http://conservativelyspeaking.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/unobtainiumcheyenne.jpg

[KantoSooner]

My dilithium crystals no can stand the strain, Cap'n!

[BoulderSooner79]

We need to be looking at technologies which don't release carbon into the atmosphere.

Either that or technologies that can re-capture waste carbon and remove it from the atmosphere. I've seen proposals on how to do that; pretty far out at this point, but at least someone is thinking about it. If we had unlimited, cheap oil available to us right now, we would be swimming in a sea of our own waste. The relative scarcity and cost of oil is buying us time and giving us incentive to solve the problems. Almost like someone planned it that way.

[SicEmBaylor]

We need to be looking at technologies which don't release carbon into the atmosphere.
Why?

[Midtowner]

I'm not sure exactly the mechanism proposed for the planet in question. I would guess that the pressures inside the gas clouds that surround young stars and precipitate into planets would be sufficient.

And, yes, we should be jamming on nuclear here. Chernobyl was the result of an insane moron without an engineering degree trying to show off what hairy nuts he had on a disaster test. Tepco was the result of a very old design being pushed way beyond design limits by a company managed by people who were able, through decades of political corruptioin, to elevate themselves above any rational regulatory oversight. Nuclear is pretty much proven and, on balance, safe.

Yep. Of course their lobby sucks compared to coal and NG, so they're relegated to the back burner.

[Midtowner]

Why?

Science. Books. Read 'em.

[SicEmBaylor]

Science. Books. Read 'em.
I don't read much fiction.

[FaninAma]

All we need is to spend a few more billion dollars on bankrupt green energy companies and all our energy problems will be solved.

[okie52]

Yep. Of course their lobby sucks compared to coal and NG, so they're relegated to the back burner.

Obama relegated nukes to the back burner his first month in office. Not that he didn't try to with ng and coal.

[SoonerorLater]

I'm not sure exactly the mechanism proposed for the planet in question. I would guess that the pressures inside the gas clouds that surround young stars and precipitate into planets would be sufficient.

And, yes, we should be jamming on nuclear here. Chernobyl was the result of an insane moron without an engineering degree trying to show off what hairy nuts he had on a disaster test. Tepco was the result of a very old design being pushed way beyond design limits by a company managed by people who were able, through decades of political corruptioin, to elevate themselves above any rational regulatory oversight. Nuclear is pretty much proven and, on balance, safe.

I never have bought the nuclear argument. We don't have any particularly good way to get rid of nuclear waste and as long as we have earthquakes and tsunamis there is always the chance of a cataclysmic event. While the incidence of problems might actually be less that other energy forms the downside risk is much greater. Like you said above, curruption and incompetence caused problems. Going forward the earth will still be populated by these kind of people. The same problems will repeat themselves as long as human beings are are involved.

[Midtowner]

I never have bought the nuclear argument. We don't have any particularly good way to get rid of nuclear waste and as long as we have earthquakes and tsunamis there is always the chance of a cataclysmic event. While the incidence of problems might actually be less that other energy forms the downside risk is much greater. Like you said above, curruption and incompetence caused problems. Going forward the earth will still be populated by these kind of people. The same problems will repeat themselves as long as human beings are are involved.

That's why we have government regulation.

--the only cure for stupid in the private sector.

[KantoSooner]

I'm not convinced that nuclear waste is that much more deadly than massive air pollution, land despoilation, water pollution, etc derived from fossil fuels. And, so far, those are our only real options. The rest supply a trivial amount of energy.

[SoonerorLater]

That's why we have government regulation.

--the only cure for stupid in the private sector.

Don't I feel silly? Yes of course the government could prevent anything bad from happening. They're all geniuses. Nothing gets by them.

[okie52]

I never have bought the nuclear argument. We don't have any particularly good way to get rid of nuclear waste and as long as we have earthquakes and tsunamis there is always the chance of a cataclysmic event. While the incidence of problems might actually be less that other energy forms the downside risk is much greater. Like you said above, curruption and incompetence caused problems. Going forward the earth will still be populated by these kind of people. The same problems will repeat themselves as long as human beings are are involved.

The US, thanks to Obama, maintains it's nuclear waste at 104 nuclear sites around the country rather than the nuclear repository at yucca that was funded by 4 presidents and 13 congresses. Yucca was determined by the national academy of science to be safe for 10,000 years and was supported by obamas own energy secretary Chu just months before assuming office. The nuclear waste could be further reprocessed and used which would reduce the waste by over 80% yet this is also fought by the party of science and the head scientist Hussein. France has been using this technique for years.

[pphilfran]

It is impossible to safely bury nuke waste but it is feasible to inject many cubic miles of compressed CO2 each year into the ground for eternity...

[Midtowner]

Don't I feel silly? Yes of course the government could prevent anything bad from happening. They're all geniuses. Nothing gets by them.

Imagine how well mines would work without mine inspectors. Imagine how safe construction sites would be without OSHA. Imagine how clean the world would be without the EPA.

--oh we've been there, y'know, back when miners had to strike and be shot sometimes due to unacceptable working conditions or where construction sites were hazardous death traps or when rivers actually burned because no one was controlling the waste dumped into them. The good 'ol days.

[okie52]

It is impossible to safely bury nuke waste but it is feasible to inject many cubic miles of compressed CO2 each year into the ground for eternity...

Clean coal is just around the corner.

[pphilfran]

Love Canal

[pphilfran]

Clean coal is just around the corner.

Which is worse..."clean" coal or ethanol...

[okie52]

Which is worse..."clean" coal or ethanol...

Since one is non existent it is hard to say.

[sappstuf]

Imagine how well mines would work without mine inspectors. Imagine how safe construction sites would be without OSHA. Imagine how clean the world would be without the EPA.

--oh we've been there, y'know, back when miners had to strike and be shot sometimes due to unacceptable working conditions or where construction sites were hazardous death traps or when rivers actually burned because no one was controlling the waste dumped into them. The good 'ol days.

Please inform us of what the EPA has done in China to improve the environment.

[Midtowner]

Please inform us of what the EPA has done in China to improve the environment.

Forced the development of new clean tech for China to steal?

But overall, that's a total non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about. The United States (until EPA) was far and away the biggest polluter on Earth. We probably still are, but at least we make the effort not to be. Obviously, the EPA has no jurisdiction in China.

[diverdog]

I'm not convinced that nuclear waste is that much more deadly than massive air pollution, land despoilation, water pollution, etc derived from fossil fuels. And, so far, those are our only real options. The rest supply a trivial amount of energy.

Kanto:

I am not sure. Russia has had some awful issues with nuclear waste.

Here is just one incident:

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Karabolka-Nuclear-Disaster23apr04.htm

[sappstuf]

Forced the development of new clean tech for China to steal?

But overall, that's a total non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about. The United States (until EPA) was far and away the biggest polluter on Earth. We probably still are, but at least we make the effort not to be. Obviously, the EPA has no jurisdiction in China.

You should really do your research on the old Soviet Union.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But that wouldn't help promote the premise of guilt that's so important, Sapp.