Nuclear DISASTER Thread !!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ELVIS
    Banned
    • Dec 2003
    • 44120

    #46
    Oil is NOT a fossil fuel


    by Peter J. Morgan

    We all grew up believing that oil is a fossil fuel, and just about every day this ‘fact’ is mentioned in newspapers and on TV. However, let us not forget what Lenin said – “A lie told often enough becomes truth.” It was in 1757 that the great Russian scholar Mikhailo V. Lomonosov enunciated the hypothesis that oil might originate from biological detritus. The scientists who first rejected Lomonsov’s hypothesis, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were the famous German naturalist and geologist Alexander von Humboldt and the French chemist and thermodynamicist Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac, who together enunciated the proposition that oil is a primordial material erupted from great depth, and is unconnected with any biological matter near the surface of the Earth.



    With the development of chemistry during the nineteenth century, and following particularly the enunciation of the second law of thermodynamics by Clausius in 1850, Lomonosov’s biological hypothesis came inevitably under attack. In science, a hypothesis is merely somebody’s attempt to explain something. It is merely that – an attempt. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is also an open invitation for somebody else to discredit it by using physical evidence to demonstrate that the hypothesis is flawed, or incorrect – that is how scientific knowledge is advanced. Einstein is reputed to have remarked that just one fact was all that was needed to invalidate his theory of relativity.

    The great French chemist Marcellin Berthelot particularly scorned the hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum. Berthelot first carried out experiments involving, among others, a series of what are now referred to as Kolbe reactions and demonstrated the generation of petroleum by dissolving steel in strong acid. He produced the suite of n-alkanes and made it plain that such were generated in total absence of any “biological” molecule or process. Berthelot’s investigations were later extended and refined by other scientists, including Biasson and Sokolov, all of whom observed similar phenomena and likewise concluded that petroleum was unconnected to biological matter.

    During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the great Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev also examined and rejected Lomonosov’s hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum. In contrast to Berthelot who had made no suggestion as to where or how petroleum might have come, Mendeleev stated clearly that petroleum is a primordial material which has erupted from great depth. With extraordinary perception, Mendeleev hypothesised the existence of geological structures which he called “deep faults,” and correctly identified such as the locus of weakness in the crust of the Earth via which petroleum would travel from the depths. After he made that hypothesis, Mendeleev was abusively criticised by the geologists of his time, for the notion of deep faults was then unknown. Today, of course, an understanding of plate tectonics would be unimaginable without recognition of deep faults.

    Soon after the end of World War II, the Soviet dictator, Stalin, realised that the then Soviet Union needed its own substantial oil reserves and production system if it was ever again called upon to defend itself against an attacker such as Hitler’s Germany. In 1947, the Soviet Union had, as its petroleum ‘experts’ then estimated, very limited petroleum reserves, of which the largest were the oil fields in the region of the Abseron Peninsula, near the Caspian city of Baku in what is now the independent country of Azerbaijan. At that time, the oil fields near Baku were considered to be “depleting” and “nearing exhaustion.” During World War II, the Soviets had occupied the two northern provinces of Iran, but in 1946, they were forced out by the British. By 1947, the Soviets realised that the American, British, and French were not going to allow them to operate in the Middle East, nor in the petroleum producing areas of Africa, nor Indonesia, nor Burma, nor Malaysia, nor anywhere in the Far East, nor in Latin America. The government of the Soviet Union recognised then that new petroleum reserves would have to be discovered and developed within the U.S.S.R..

    Stalin’s response was to set up a task force of top scientists and engineers in a project similar to the Manhattan Project – the top-secret US program to develop the atom bomb during WWII – and initially under the same secrecy, and charged them with the task of finding out what oil was, where it came from and how to find, recover and efficiently refine it.

    In 1951, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins was first enunciated by Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev at the All-Union petroleum geology congress. Kudryavtsev analysed the hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum, and pointed out the failures of the claims then commonly put forth to support that hypothesis. Kudryavtsev was soon joined by numerous other Russian and Ukrainian geologists, among the first of whom were P. N. Kropotkin, K. A. Shakhvarstova, G. N. Dolenko, V. F. Linetskii, V. B. Porfir’yev, and K. A. Anikiev.

    During the first decade of its existence, the modern theory of petroleum origins was the subject of great contention and controversy. Between the years 1951 and 1965, with the leadership of Kudryavtsev and Porfir’yev, increasing numbers of geologists published articles demonstrating the failures and inconsistencies inherent in the old “biogenic origin” hypothesis. With the passing of the first decade of the modern theory, the failure of Lomonosov’s eighteenth century hypothesis of an origin of petroleum from biological detritus in the near-surface sediments had been thoroughly demonstrated, the hypothesis discredited, and the modern theory firmly established.

    An important point to be recognised is that the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic petroleum origins was, initially, a geologists’ theory. Kudryavtsev, Kropotkin, Dolenko, Porfir’yev and the developers of the modern theory of petroleum were all geologists. Their arguments were necessarily those of geologists, developed from many observations, and much data, organised into a pattern, and argued by persuasion.

    By contrast, the practice of mainstream, predictive modern science, particularly physics and chemistry, involves a minimum of observation or data, and applies only a minimum of physical law, inevitably expressed with formal mathematics, and argues by compulsion. Such predictive proof of the geologists’ assertions for the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins had to wait almost a half century, for such required the development not only of modern quantum statistical mechanics but also that of the techniques of many-body theory and the application of statistical geometry to the analysis of dense fluids, designated scaled particle theory.

    To recapitulate, Stalin’s team of scientists and engineers found that oil is not a ‘fossil fuel’ but is a natural product of planet earth – the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide – two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth’s crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately 50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of approximately 1500°C, and will continue more or less until the ‘death’ of planet earth in millions of years’ time. The high pressure, as well as centrifugal acceleration from the earth’s rotation, causes oil to continuously seep up along fissures in the earth’s crust into subterranean caverns, which we call oil fields. Oil is still being produced in great abundance, and is a sustainable resource – by the same definition that makes geothermal energy a sustainable resource. All we have to do is develop better geotechnical science to predict where it is and learn how to drill down deep enough to get to it. So far, the Russians have drilled to more than 13 km and found oil. In contrast, the deepest any Western oil company has drilled is around 4.5 km.

    A team consisting of Russian scientists and Dr J. F. Kenney, of Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, USA, have actually built a reactor vessel and proven that oil is produced from calcium carbonate and iron oxide, as detailed on the Gas Resources website.
    This is what Dr Kenney has to say about how he came to be involved: “In the first instance, the articles on this website are dedicated to the memory of Nikolai Alexandrovich Kudryavtsev, who first enunciated in 19511 what has become the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins. After Kudryavtsev, all the rest followed. Secondly, these articles are dedicated generally to the many geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and petroleum engineers of the former U.S.S.R. who, during the past half century, developed modern petroleum science. By doing so, they raised their country from being, in 1946, a relatively petroleum-poor one, to the greatest petroleum producing and exporting nation in the world today. These articles are dedicated specifically to the late Academician Emmanuil Bogdanovich Chekaliuk, the greatest statistical thermodynamicist ever to have turned his formidable intellect to the problem of petroleum genesis. In the Summer of 1976, during the depths of the cold war and at immeasurable hazard, Academician Chekaliuk chose to respond, across a gulf of political hostility, to an unsolicited letter from an unknown American chief executive officer of a petroleum company headquartered in Houston, Texas. Thenafter and for almost fifteen years, Academician Chekaliuk was my teacher, my collaborator, and my friend. [JFK] 1. Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1951) Petroleum Economy [Neftianoye Khozyaistvo] 9, 17-29.”

    Needless to say, the last people to tell us the truth about oil will be the oil producers and oil companies, for they of course have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that oil is a fossil fuel and that it will soon be exhausted, in order to ratchet up the price for as long as they can. And don’t look to the Russians to enlighten the world with the truth about oil either, for they are surely laughing now that the oil price is approaching $US150 a barrel.

    A US Public Service Radio interview with Dr Kenney may be heard on the Gas Resources website.

    Some may ask “How come all of this isn’t commonly known?” For the answer, one needs to consider what happened to Galileo when he first put forward the hypothesis that rather than the conventional wisdom that the sun revolved around the earth, the earth revolved around the sun. He was branded a heretic and locked up! You are invited to read an excellent article entitled “Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas”, by J. Sacherman 1997.

    Some may say “Well, even if oil is a renewable resource, mankind should not burn it because the carbon dioxide so produced causes global warming.” My answer to that is that the idea that mankind’s production of carbon dioxide causes global warming is merely a hypothesis, and this has been thoroughly discredited by Prof. Robert Carter and numerous other scientists.

    You are invited to listen to a recording of a brief radio interview with Prof. Carter, where he succinctly explains that after spending billions on researching the topic, no climate scientists have ever succeeded in finding any scientifically valid link between man-made carbon dioxide and global warming.. He makes the point that whatever effects mankind’s production of carbon dioxide have on earth’s climate, they are immeasurably small and are swamped by the changes in climate that occur naturally.

    You are also invited to view a video of Prof. Robert Carter’s demolition of the “mankind’s production of carbon dioxide causes global warming” hypothesis at where you will see Prof. Carter illustrate five examples of verifiable science that refute the hypothesis. Prof. Carter makes the point that truth in science is never decided by consensus, but if you prefer to believe the pronouncement by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s IPCC agree that humans are causing a climate crisis”, which is repeated ad nauseam by environmentalists, the press and governments around the world, including ours, then you are invited to read an article where Tom Harris and John McLean tell the truth about this deception and point out that “an example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Almost 60% of the comments received from the 62 expert reviewers of this critical chapter were rejected by the IPCC editors and 55 of the 62 expert reviewers had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. In my view, seven does not constitute “a consensus of the world’s scientists.”

    If it’s consensus you want before you decide on what the truth is, then go to http://www.petitionproject.org to read about the petition signed by more than 30,000 scientists, more than 9000 of whom hold PhDs. In addition, the International Climate Science Coalition has on its website the Manhattan Declaration and its lists of signatories, There are links there to enable you to view the lists of signatories. These two petitions, in my view, constitute consensus!

    Knowing that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming frees us to resume building coal-fired electricity generating stations to meet our growing electrical energy needs. When the cost of eventual decommissioning the plants is factored in, coal is a long way cheaper than nuclear, and with the latest technology in exhaust gas filters and scrubbers, burning coal is much less environmentally unfriendly than it used to be.

    We all know what has been happening to food prices, mostly as a direct result of US government subsidies for the production of ethanol from corn.

    The current US energy strategy, driven by the erroneous beliefs that oil is a fossil fuel and that its supply will soon be exhausted, and that burning coal causes global warming, is illogical. Given the fact that oil is abiotic and is in continuous production deep down in the earth’s crust, at rates far in excess of what mankind could ever conceivably consume, it makes absolutely no sense for any nation to buy it from foreign sources if it is cheaper to drill for and pump its own – and that is precisely what the US should be doing immediately, without ever needing to go near the wildlife reserves in Alaska.

    If the US switched from being a net consumer in the world oil market to becoming a net supplier, the price of oil would plunge, perhaps to around $US30 per barrel, with the result that the world’s economies would boom as never before. Most importantly, people would have confidence to invest in their futures, safe in the knowledge that oil would never run out. An extra bonus would be that the US military-industrial-political complex would no longer feel the need to use military force to control the Middle East’s oil supplies, and neither would any other world power.

    A further bonus would be that all subsidies to producers of alternative fuels and energy supplies could be removed, with the result that such production would occur only if it was economically viable, which would mean that most such producers would either cease, or greatly scale down, their businesses.

    Each of us in our own small way can now burn as much petroleum product as we can afford to put in our cars and boats, safe in the knowledge that (a) oil is never going to run out and (b) all the extra carbon dioxide we produce will not cause global warming, but will help plants, and hence food, to grow faster, thus helping to feed the billions!

    Please feel free to contact your local political representative and urge him or her to put a stop to the lunacy of trying to reduce mankind’s carbon dioxide ‘emissions’, and put a stop to talking about oil as a ‘fossil fuel’.

    The sooner people wake up to the non-science of ‘global warming’ and ‘oil is a fossil fuel’ and ‘burning coal and oil is an environmental sin’, the better off we and our children and our children’s children (etc.) will be.

    Please feel free to copy and paste the text of this article to all those on your email address list. By doing this, you will help to ensure that so many people will tell their government that they will not put up with the ‘global warming’ nonsense any more, that the whole edifice will collapse, in much the same way that the Berlin Wall was brought down and the Iron Curtain collapsed – without another shot being fired – just as, I might add, I predicted to my high school students during my years spent teaching economics in the early 1980s. Several years later, in 1989, I was in Ludwigshafen, only two weeks before the Berlin Wall came down, and well remember the tears flowing profusely down the cheeks of my elderly East German companions at a ‘new wine’ festival as I told them that the Wall would come down in a few weeks and that there would be “one Germany, very soon!”

    Peter J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), Dip. Teaching, is a Consulting Forensic Engineer, Marine Designer, Technical Writer, Sub-editor & Technical Editor in Auckland, New Zealand. Peter can be reached at: forensic.eng@xtra.co.nz



    Comment

    • ashstralia
      ROTH ARMY ELITE
      • Feb 2004
      • 6566

      #47
      phew.. thanks elvis. so when the 'renewable' oil needs replenishing, where does that come from? and how big's the hole? and has anyone done a study on what would happen if one of those motherfuckers went off? fuck. we're all fucked.

      Comment

      • Blaze
        Full Member Status

        • Jan 2009
        • 4371

        #48
        That is a good point, Ash. Even if oil is a renewable source, ( and it would be even if it derived from large scale carcass deposit such as that from the Flood or instinctive tenacities to place carcass in one location) how long it takes to harvest it an important calculation in its management.

        Trees are a renewing resourse, however, if trees are not managed correctly, including the time it takes to grow a tree, one could over harvest or over work the soil.
        There was a time in Europe when Europe depended on trees for energy that they used all the trees and suffered for quite some time.




        Forest depletion and responses: management and coal

        One of the most formidable problem facing modern Europe was deforestation. A world without wood would mean that most buildings, funiture and even entire cities could not exist. In the early modern period it was even more extreme. The most important machines of the era, windmills, were largely made out of wood, as were houses and ships. A warship in the late 17th century needed 3500 trees aged 80 to 120 years old.


        "I have heard there are troubles of more than one kind. - Some come from ahead and some come from behind. - But I've bought a big bat. I'm all ready you see. - Now my troubles are going to have troubles with me!" ~ Dr. Seuss
        sigpic

        Comment

        • Seshmeister
          ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

          • Oct 2003
          • 35441

          #49
          Originally posted by ELVIS
          Oil is NOT a fossil fuel


          by Peter J. Morgan

          A lone unqualified nutjob trying to make 2+2 = 3

          Comment

          • ELVIS
            Banned
            • Dec 2003
            • 44120

            #50
            You must be mixing your vodka with FORD-Ade...

            Comment

            • Seshmeister
              ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

              • Oct 2003
              • 35441

              #51
              Weaker than a kitten with asthma.

              You pick some random voice on the internet with a short, partly fictional essay and decide that he's right and a whole branch of science is totally wrong. A branch of science that has found the resources to power everything in your life and now it's to be dismissed.

              You are getting so fucking out there that you won't be debatable soon.

              Watching your intellectual decline is a depressing case study in the dangers of misinformation in the modern world.

              Comment

              • ELVIS
                Banned
                • Dec 2003
                • 44120

                #52
                There must have been one hell of a lot of dinosaurs then...

                Comment

                • Warham
                  DIAMOND STATUS
                  • Mar 2004
                  • 14589

                  #53
                  FORD's talking to himself again? What else is new?
                  Last edited by Warham; 03-16-2011, 11:58 AM.

                  Comment

                  • Blaze
                    Full Member Status

                    • Jan 2009
                    • 4371

                    #54
                    that is possible, Elvis.

                    One explanation that aligns with the piece meal history of the Bible is:

                    God’s period reference is not equitant to that on Earth. God’s time is calculated at a universal level.

                    Humans on Earth do not know universal time calculations.

                    When the flood occurred, the “ark” contained the samples from the “garden” (or contained developed areas.)

                    A momentous global event occurred. This event was a progression of planet aging or providence.

                    The Earth was once enveloped by a significant vapor. The vapor envelope disintegrated to water. This caused large amounts of land loss and a momentous change in environment. As eons progressed the large deposits of carcasses and, biological matter developed into areas of oil.

                    It is possible that oil is being created even as we speak, to what extent of its maturity would be a variable. Nevertheless, its concentrations would not be that of a mass environmental change.

                    I can see the chemical reaction theory you present. However, it is along the same theories of the biological creation of oil. Though, humans to some extent have learned to speed up time (for example grown diamonds); humans are not proficient at time manipulation at a mass scale at this point.
                    "I have heard there are troubles of more than one kind. - Some come from ahead and some come from behind. - But I've bought a big bat. I'm all ready you see. - Now my troubles are going to have troubles with me!" ~ Dr. Seuss
                    sigpic

                    Comment

                    • Nitro Express
                      DIAMOND STATUS
                      • Aug 2004
                      • 32880

                      #55
                      There's plenty of oil left but the problem is it's oil that is hard to get at. Saudi Arabia has been the world's oil mecca because the oil was close to the surface, close to ports, and cheap to extract. Now they are pumping sea water into their wells and spit out the same oil reserve number year after year. They only pump water into oil wells when that well is just about done. The oil floats on top of the water and allows them to extract the last little bit of it. Saudi Arabia is running out of cheap oil but they are trying to hide that fact.

                      The oil companies know it. You don't drill the deep ocean unless you have to. They are pushing the technology as far as they can and when it gets away from them, you have the BP oil spill. Now they are fracking the continental US for natural gas and oil. It works great but contamination of the water table seems to be the result. Yeah, we can stay on oil if we want more oil spills and contaminated water.

                      The warning signs were in the 1970's. There was a big move to get off the stuff then but then the oil prices fell, the middle east became more stable and we forgot about it for awhile and now our lack of heeding the warnings of the past have bit us on the ass.
                      No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                      Comment

                      • FORD
                        ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                        • Jan 2004
                        • 59141

                        #56
                        Eat Us And Smile

                        Cenk For America 2024!!

                        Justice Democrats


                        "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                        Comment

                        • ELVIS
                          Banned
                          • Dec 2003
                          • 44120

                          #57
                          Hartmann must listen to Alex Jones before going on the air like Glenn Beckkk does...

                          Hartless should order some Diamond Gussets while he's at it...


                          Comment

                          • FORD
                            ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                            • Jan 2004
                            • 59141

                            #58
                            Actually he did an hour of his show WITH Alex Jones a couple of years ago. It was some interesting radio.
                            Eat Us And Smile

                            Cenk For America 2024!!

                            Justice Democrats


                            "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                            Comment

                            • FORD
                              ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                              • Jan 2004
                              • 59141

                              #59
                              And speaking of BecKKK......



                              Last edited by FORD; 03-16-2011, 03:17 PM.
                              Eat Us And Smile

                              Cenk For America 2024!!

                              Justice Democrats


                              "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                              Comment

                              • ELVIS
                                Banned
                                • Dec 2003
                                • 44120

                                #60
                                Now that is some idiotic BULLSHIT!!!

                                I really hope FAUX dumps him soon...

                                Comment

                                Working...