Debunking fuel conservation myths...

[yarrr]

Originally Posted by nmgolfer

Just to recap...

1) Oil is made by mother earth converting (predominately) limestone under extreme heat and pressure not dead dinosaurs. Coal is desiccated oil (Made by MOTHER EARTH) and neither is running out ANYTIME soon. Besides that we waste billions upon billions of gallons of fuel by not using our abundant resources (THORIUM) wisely.

Um... source?

Oil forms IN limestone, it doesn't convert limestone to oil.

[yarrr]

Originally Posted by PK198105

so....you are saying you are only using those two source to get your info....ok....i rest my case. ANd of course this is Mr. Im always right I'm sorry ll just go back to ignoring you

Nope, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying when someone doesn't have a valid argument, they attack the source, even if its a valid source.

[nmgolfer]

Originally Posted by yarrr

Um... source?

Oil forms IN limestone, it doesn't convert limestone to oil.

You're wrong... RESEARCH IT FOR YOURSELF! I don't spoon feed.

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by PK198105

I'd like to know how many of all the people in this discussion actually have scientific background and know how to efficiently and effectively get their info. If you are only using google and wikipedia you are perpetuating your own cycle of ignorance , to quote one of my teachers.

I've written a report on Kyoto for one of my classes (unfortunately I can't find it). I used primary sources like articles in peered reviewed journals and academic books.
I've also taken an anthropology course entitled "The Human Ecological Footprint." The professor used primary sources but we also covered a lot more than just climate change.

Secondary sources like Wikipedia are ok for reference only if they reference primary sources that are credible.
Google can find good sources, but there are better database searches for scientific work.

[yarrr]

Originally Posted by nmgolfer

You're wrong... RESEARCH IT FOR YOURSELF! I don't spoon feed.

Ahahah you write essays on forums, but you don't spoon feed. Right. I have researched it, and most scientists agree that the majority of oil was formed by sea life, mostly vegetation.

I also googled oil from limestone, limestone converted to oil, and there was nothing about it, just about animals and vegetation trapped in limestone at formation which are then turned into oil over millions of years.

I can't find one thing saying "limestone turns into oil." If you can't come up with one source, its just not true... lol

[nmgolfer]

Originally Posted by PK198105

And thats how it suppose to be done, kudos. Wikipedia and google are great tools to supplement your research and not base it on them.

Im no geologist or chemist but oil used to power our vehicles and other types of machinery is of the carbon-hydrogen type and limestone doesnt contain any considerable amounts of either, there are traces but nothing significant. Also they are called fossil fuels for a reason

They are called "FOSSIL FUELS" to fool the fools.

LIMESTONE IS TURNED INTO PETROLEUM DEEP UNDERGROUND UNDER EXTREME TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE. The gulf disaster occured 5 miles down... ask yourself HOW DID DEAD DINOSAURS END UP DOWN THERE? Answer: THEY DIDN'T. That oil originates from dead plants is a lie fed to idiots ill-equipped to think for themselves.

Petroleum originates from abiogenic process' (google Thomas Gold). This fact has been known for YEARS! But simply put artificial scarcity (and the Peak Oil ruse that has accompanied it for the last century) increases petroleum company profits. Years ago Russia had no oil but they knew Thomas Gold's theories and they pursued it and now Europe depends on Russia for Fuels ... they and their DEEP WELLS are major world producers.

Landau is a geologist who thinks for himself and who knows the score... has all of the pertinent equations and had been published in peer review acedemia:

NATURAL GAS AND COAL SYNTHESIS FROM LIMESTONE AND CARBON DIOXIDE
LANDAU, Chris, 6764 Therese Trail, Browns Valley, CA 95918, chrislandau@yahoo.com (TS#17)
I suggest that inorganic pathways exist for producing coal, natural gas and oil from dolomite(CaMgCO3), calcium carbonate(CaCO3) (limestone), calcium carbonate sandstones and mudstones, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The carbon in the calcium carbonate is changed to methane and other natural gases by heat, and by reducing hydrogen sulphide gas and water. Active fault zones are a source of hydrogen sulphide gas, carbon dioxide gas and water. Under reducing water poor regions will produce coal. With more water, natural gases are produced. With abundant water, oil is produced. Natural gas is found within, below and above limestone or calcium rich sandstone layers. These layers are the source of methane. They are not the traps for natural gas. In a reducing environment, limestone is changed to methane.

CaCO3(limestone)+4H2S(hydrogen sulphide)+2Fe(iron) =Ca (OH)2(hydrated lime)+CH4(methane)+H20(water)+2FeS2(Pyrite)
Also, in the presence of water and hydrogen sulphide, a reducing and hydrating environment, methane, lime and sulphur tri-oxide are produced.

CaCO3+H20+H2S = CH4 +Ca (OH) 2+SO3 (sulphur tri-oxide)
Coal and methane may form by carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide bubbling out of volcanic vents in the presence of hydrogen sulphide (black smokers) No limestone is necessary.

H2S will react with salt-water brines to produce HCl (hydrochloric acid).

H2S+2NaCl (salt) = 2HCl+Na2S

Hydrochloric acid reacts with calcium carbonate to produce carbon dioxide.

1) 3CO2(carbon dioxide) + H2S = 3CO(carbon monoxide) +H2O+SO2 (sulphur dioxide)
2) SO2 +CaCO3 = CaSO4+CO

Sulphur dioxide converts limestone to gypsum or anhydrite.

3) H2S + 3CO = 3C (coal/lignite) +H2O+SO2

Carbon dioxide and water with hydrogen sulphide will produce methane gas.

4) 2C + H2S + 3 H2O =2 CH4 + SO3

The accepted origin for coal and gas is through forests and plankton being buried under heat and pressure. Tree fern fossils or pterodactyl fossils and dinosaur bones in coal do not mean that these fossils created the coal. The fossils were preserved in non – oxidizing, reducing conditions. Plankton in oil means that these reducing conditions preserved these organisms. The plankton did not create the oil. Coal is therefore a chemical sedimentary deposit as is chert (SiO2) and dolomite (CaMgCO3). Oil and gas are inorganic by-products of reducing environments and conditions. With further reduction and in the presence of iron, coal and seashells, are changed to pyrite. Gastropod shells are often seen under reducing conditions, perfectly preserved and made of pyrite. The Petrified Forest, which represent tree trunks turned to stone, under siliceous conditions, does not mean that living trees when buried, are always preserved in carbon form. The fossils outlines are preserved, butthey are altered to the chemistry that surrounds them.

http://www.aegweb.org/files/public/abstracts.pdf
http://www.aipg.org/Meetings/2009%20...roceedings.pdf

http://www.opednews.com/author/author47248.html

[nmgolfer]

Originally Posted by yarrr

Ahahah you write essays on forums, but you don't spoon feed. Right. I have researched it, and most scientists agree that the majority of oil was formed by sea life, mostly vegetation.

I also googled oil from limestone, limestone converted to oil, and there was nothing about it, just about animals and vegetation trapped in limestone at formation which are then turned into oil over millions of years.

I can't find one thing saying "limestone turns into oil." If you can't come up with one source, its just not true... lol

In addition to everything we know about you, You're also a lousy researcher

[nmgolfer]

Originally Posted by PK198105

wow do you know how tectonic plates move over time, you really think the planet has the same layout as it had when dinosaurs where here? just because one place is now inaccessible doesn't mean it was always like this. stop using google to research academic stuff because it will only return the most popular links first it is not a relevance based algorithm but popularity based one, so for sure the conspiracy theories will be the most popular but not necessarily relevant or valid. this is the risk of only basing your research on the net, go to a library and look for stuff to back up the info you found.

Is everything scientific correct, hell no thats why people keep on learning, but sometimes there are facts you just cant fudge or ignore. Im sorry but limestone does not equal oil, it doesn't produce oil its just part of a whole process you have to get through to get oil but not the actual producer. Why do you think there are gases that need to be extracted first before you can access the oil, not because its limestone but because methane and propane are the result of organic decay. You expose limestone to acid and the product would be calcium and CO2, CO2 doesn't ignite like you see on the oil platforms (when they burn off the gases that are released during drilling). think a bit

in addition the quote seems more like a hypothesis then an actual theory. just because it has a fancy title or looks authentic doesn't mean it is. Find me stuff from MIT, Princeton,McGill, Harvard or any other prestigious and established school that supports your hypothesis and ramblings and I promise I'll give you the benefit of the doubt , but right now you spitting out info that you saw only as a google result.

use these to do research:
http://infomine.ucr.edu/
http://www.techxtra.ac.uk/index.html
http://www.incywincy.com/

You're full of ... logical fallacies. Just because someone is from MIT does not make them any more qualified in a given subject matter than my dog. That particular logical fallacy is called "appeal to authority". But Thomas Gold (originator or abiogenic petro theory) was from Cambrige so neener neener neener!

Well here's the bottom line... I think you're just like PhotoD.ude ignorant of science in general, geology in particular and completely unprepared to pass judgement or even begin to understand any of these topic no matter how long and how hard you "google". We will just have to agree to disagree.

[PhotoDu.de]

nmgolfer: Do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

[tk-421]

Guys, let's all turn it down a notch. This is an interesting and important topic, so I would like to keep the thread open. Thanks.

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by tk-421

Guys, let's all turn it down a notch. This is an interesting and important topic, so I would like to keep the thread open. Thanks.

Has my behavior been appropriate?

p.s. I am just going to double repost this so he sees it:
nmgolfer: Do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by nmgolfer

But Thomas Gold (originator or abiogenic petro theory) was from Cambrige so neener neener neener!

Thomas Gold was a astronomy professor, not a geologist. http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicl...Gold.obit.html

"The debate still is raging on one of Gold's last, and most widely controversial, ideas: that oil and natural gas are formed not from decaying organic matter, as most scientists believe, but from geologic processes and continually well up to the surface from deep underground.

The presence of organic molecules in all petroleum deposits has long been taken as evidence for the biological origin of petroleum. Gold argued instead in his 1999 book The Deep Hot Biosphere that the organic molecules come from subterranean microbes that feed on petroleum deep in the Earth's crust. Gold's vision of a supply of oil and gas that is essentially inexhaustible drew intense criticism from petroleum geologists."

He didn't provide proof, he provided a different theory. This theory does not hold up under scrutiny.

You are cherry picking results, I am trying to looking at the scientific consensus.

Sorry for repeating myself again but I really would like an answer. Mngolfer, do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

[yarrr]

Originally Posted by PhotoDu.de

Thomas Gold was a astronomy professor, not a geologist. http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicl...Gold.obit.html

"The debate still is raging on one of Gold's last, and most widely controversial, ideas: that oil and natural gas are formed not from decaying organic matter, as most scientists believe, but from geologic processes and continually well up to the surface from deep underground.

The presence of organic molecules in all petroleum deposits has long been taken as evidence for the biological origin of petroleum. Gold argued instead in his 1999 book The Deep Hot Biosphere that the organic molecules come from subterranean microbes that feed on petroleum deep in the Earth's crust. Gold's vision of a supply of oil and gas that is essentially inexhaustible drew intense criticism from petroleum geologists."

He didn't provide proof, he provided a different theory. This theory does not hold up under scrutiny.

You are cherry picking results, I am trying to looking at the scientific consensus.

Sorry for repeating myself again but I really would like an answer. Mngolfer, do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

broooooooooooooo

Those petroleum geologists that criticized him were all bought out by big oil man.. Gold was the only one with the balls to stand up to them!

/standard conspiracy theorist answer

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by yarrr

broooooooooooooo

Those petroleum geologists that criticized him were all bought out by big oil man.. Gold was the only one with the balls to stand up to them!

/standard conspiracy theorist answer

Conspiracy theories are great. If BP isn't competent enough to drill for oil, how would they be able to keep the wraps on a huge conspiracy like some claim? If this was such a huge conspiracy there would be so many information leaks/people to keep in line that it would be an incredible feat.

[fmicle]

Originally Posted by PK198105

Also they are called fossil fuels for a reason

Just like the natives in North America were called Indians?

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by fmicle

Just like the natives in North America were called Indians?

Right, we call them native americans now because of correct geographical knowledge. We didn't start using the term "fossil fuel" until a scientific consensus was formed on the origin of crude oil/natural gas/coal.

[nmgolfer]

Originally Posted by PhotoDu.de

nmgolfer: Do you understand why air with more mass would retain heat better? Remember, I am talking about mass, not air pressure.

Apparently you haven't a clue about thermodynamics in general or the heat capacity of a substance (including air) in particular therefore, In deference to the moderators... I will not respond to your idiocy. We are done, this is my last post this thread.

[nmgolfer]

This article is so germane to the topic at hand I had to break my earlier vow to discontinue this dialog. Your are being systematically lied to and the sooner you realize it the better off all living creatures on this planet will be.


us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.