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?
Oil on the Moon?
-
gordhaddow
- Ensign
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:50 am
- Location: London, ON
-
S. Bilderback
- Science Officer
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:12 am
- Location: The Enchanted Forests of N. Central USA
-
craterchains
- Commander
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:57 pm
- Location: On a boat near Tacoma, WA, usa
- Contact:
oil on the moom
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
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...
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...
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.
Aren't we pretty confident it was created by a cataclysmic event - a mars sized body striking the early Earth?If the moon was created by a cataclysmic event as theorized, it may not.
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:
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
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.So why is it that this theory should hold for the earth and not for the moon?
The more I learn, the more I know what I don't know.
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.
"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:
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.
Norval
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.
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
Agreed...the US political-economic climate right now leans toward the supply-siders; conservation of any sort simply equates to "less sales."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.....
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.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.
But wouldn't that just be the ultimate irony...oil, oil, everywhere...and not a drop worth using.
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.FieryIce wrote:Isn't it so, that processing materials in an airless enviroment does have it's advantages.would have little use
oil on the moon
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?
Has anyone actually looked for tar pits on the Moon?
Ken
oil on the moon
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