Oil on the Moon?

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
kbowersjr
Asternaut
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:05 am

Oil on the Moon?

Post by kbowersjr » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:18 am

There is a theory of the source of oil called deep oil which suggests that oil is a conglomerate of hydrocarbon atoms which exist in interstellar space and that the oil deposits of the earth were gathered during planet formation and not by the rotting of vegetation (this theory is called peak oil). If the theory of deep oil is true, then oil exists on the earth in vast quantities at great depth.

My comment is this. If deep oil is true, there should be oil on the moon, and tar pits should be visible from the earth!

And our astronaults should have found oil!

Any comments?
Ken

gordhaddow
Ensign
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:50 am
Location: London, ON

Post by gordhaddow » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:00 am

Even if 'deep oil' is true, why does that mean the moon should have tar-pits? Given its smaller size and mass it would have cooled much more rapidly, and part of the deep oil theory is that it is the internal heat that forces that oil to migrate toward the surface.
Slan go foill!

l3p3r
Science Officer
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Hobart, Australia

Post by l3p3r » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:29 am

Yes if this theory has any weight then we should expect to see oil deep below the surface of the moon - what an exciting development that would be!

S. Bilderback
Science Officer
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:12 am
Location: The Enchanted Forests of N. Central USA

Post by S. Bilderback » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:39 pm

If the moon was created by a cataclysmic event as theorized, it may not.
The more I learn, the more I know what I don't know.

User avatar
Orca
Commander
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Orca » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:22 pm

Well, if we did find oil on the moon, we'd return much sooner than you'd expect.

The administration would declare the moon a terrorist state and we'd invade it.

:lol: :P :roll:

craterchains
Commander
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:57 pm
Location: On a boat near Tacoma, WA, usa
Contact:

Post by craterchains » Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:06 pm

:roll: uh huh
"It's not what you know, or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you." Will Rodgers 1938

ta152h0
Schooled
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Auburn, Washington, USA

oil on the moom

Post by ta152h0 » Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:11 pm

Put that theory to rest. The seismometers left on the moon by the Apollo missions have not detected any The moon is geologically dead..
Wolf Kotenberg

Aqua
Ensign
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:19 pm
Location: Cazadero, CA, USA

Post by Aqua » Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:02 am

In an electro-dynamic universe, methane and the other elemental gases are constantly being created within the core of the Earth. Those gases are the byproduct of plasma degeneration.

To test this theory, back in the late 70's, a consortium of oil companies and interests decided to drill into a meteor crater in Scandinavia. If the theory was correct, prodigious amounts of gases would be found at extreme depths.

The meteor crater was chosen because the wellhead needed be below several thousand feet. The broken strata within the ancient crater allowed for easier drilling to those depths.

At a depth of 20,000+ feet, the bottom of the well 'dropped out'. That is to say, methane and other gases poured forth, proving that theory had some merit. IN FACT, if one were to drill ANYWHERE on the Earth sufficiently deep, one would find an almost endless supply of gas.

It is those gases that accumulate under either impervious salt deposits, or organic layers that are eventually transformed into the family of hydrocarbons known commonly as 'oil'.

WHY HAS THIS INFORMATION BEEN SUPPRESSED? Think about it... An almost infinite supply of energy beyond the grasp of oil company ownership...

FieryIce
Science Officer
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:06 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC
Contact:

Post by FieryIce » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:01 am

INFORMATION BEEN SUPPRESSED
What? Information surpressed? In this day and age? How absurd.

Posted with my best sarcastic language, was going to use accent instead of language but then I would have to divulge which accent.
Tic Toc

User avatar
Orca
Commander
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Orca » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:12 am

Alternative fuels and conservation are being suppressed. Limitless petroleum supplies that are "hidden from us" are in reality, just not proven. You can't suppress something that hasn't been discovered. If your hypothesis is correct (notice I didn't use the word "theory") the oil companies would be all over that stuff.

Empeda2
Science Officer
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:02 am

Post by Empeda2 » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:23 pm

Personally, I think a lot of it is devised to create an argument in order for Americans to continue using the absurd amount of energy that they do.....
The Artist Formerly Known as Empeda

l3p3r
Science Officer
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Hobart, Australia

Post by l3p3r » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:06 pm

If the moon was created by a cataclysmic event as theorized, it may not.
Aren't we pretty confident it was created by a cataclysmic event - a mars sized body striking the early Earth?

That aside, the earth itself was created through a series of cataclysmic events! The process of accretion can be quite violent.

So why is it that this theory should hold for the earth and not for the moon?

FieryIce
Science Officer
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:06 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC
Contact:

Post by FieryIce » Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:51 pm

Accretion doesn't work for our solar system, otherwise explain the anomalies. First instance, Venus.... Venus’s very slow retrograde rotation and resonance with Earth
Tic Toc

S. Bilderback
Science Officer
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:12 am
Location: The Enchanted Forests of N. Central USA

Post by S. Bilderback » Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:59 pm

So why is it that this theory should hold for the earth and not for the moon?
It's size, gravity and where the colliding object came from, its chemical makeup, the type and size of material ejected into orbit to form the moon. . . not an easy answer.
The more I learn, the more I know what I don't know.

l3p3r
Science Officer
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Hobart, Australia

Post by l3p3r » Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:24 am

FieryIce

"Prograde rotation. All planets move around the Sun in the same direction that the Sun rotates and close to the equatorial plane of the Sun."

This is a big plus for accretion theory. Though there are inconsitencies it has to be said that a large majority of the solar system conforms to the conditions of accretion theory. I'm not saying its right, I'm saying it shouldn't be ruled out.

craterchains
Commander
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:57 pm
Location: On a boat near Tacoma, WA, usa
Contact:

Post by craterchains » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:11 am

If there really is oil on the moon, I would imagine that it would "politically incorrect" to discuss it. 8)

One thing I note is a search of these discussions or even the search for information about petroleum on the moon turns up nada, nothing, zip. :shock:

Norval
"It's not what you know, or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you." Will Rodgers 1938

User avatar
Orca
Commander
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Orca » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:28 pm

Empeda2 wrote:Personally, I think a lot of it is devised to create an argument in order for Americans to continue using the absurd amount of energy that they do.....
Agreed...the US political-economic climate right now leans toward the supply-siders; conservation of any sort simply equates to "less sales."

Empeda2
Science Officer
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:02 am

Post by Empeda2 » Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:38 pm

Not that us Brits are that far behind I would have thought..... :(
The Artist Formerly Known as Empeda

User avatar
BMAONE23
Commentator Model 1.23
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: California

Post by BMAONE23 » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:29 pm

IF, there is oil on the moon, and we DID go looking for it, it would not be a viable energy source onEarth as it would be too cost prohibitive to extract and return it to earth. it would only be usable there or to go beyond from there.

FieryIce
Science Officer
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:06 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC
Contact:

Post by FieryIce » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:37 am

to go beyond from there
Good reasoning.
Tic Toc

User avatar
Orca
Commander
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Orca » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:45 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:IF, there is oil on the moon, and we DID go looking for it, it would not be a viable energy source onEarth as it would be too cost prohibitive to extract and return it to earth. it would only be usable there or to go beyond from there.
Internal combustion engines would have little use on the airless moon. I would think that polluting the tiny air supply contained within the walls of a moon base would also be a problem.

But wouldn't that just be the ultimate irony...oil, oil, everywhere...and not a drop worth using.

:P

FieryIce
Science Officer
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:06 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC
Contact:

Post by FieryIce » Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:42 pm

would have little use
Isn't it so, that processing materials in an airless enviroment does have it's advantages.
:wink:
Tic Toc

User avatar
Orca
Commander
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Orca » Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:50 am

FieryIce wrote:
would have little use
Isn't it so, that processing materials in an airless enviroment does have it's advantages.
:wink:
This is true; steel for example is stronger when forged in a vacuum than when created on earth. I was just saying that oil would not make a useful energy source on the moon, nor would it be feasible to bring it back to earth.

kbowersjr
Asternaut
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:05 am

oil on the moon

Post by kbowersjr » Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:52 am

I agree that petroleum on the moon would be useless. The point is to establish the origin of petrolieum, with implications for the supply on earth.

Has anyone actually looked for tar pits on the Moon?
Ken

ta152h0
Schooled
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Auburn, Washington, USA

oil on the moon

Post by ta152h0 » Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:21 am

For fear of showing some of my ignorance in public, but does anyone here know the chemical-mechanical reaction required to " make crude oil" ????
Wolf Kotenberg

Post Reply