Starship Asterisk*

by **FieryIce** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:49 pm

Harry, a quote with link to an article, not the article itself but points brought out in the article such as:

(1.) The potential to produce petroleum from the crystalline basement, from volcanic structures, from impact structures, and from non-sedimentary regions generally has been entirely neglected.

Considerations About Recent Predictions of Impending Shortages of Petroleum Evaluated from the Perspective of Modern Petroleum Science

by **harry** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:17 am

Fieryice

No problem.

Have you got references

Which part are you talking about?

Happy New Year

by **FieryIce** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:20 pm

There is newer research, Harry, that counter those statements. You might want to re-research that research.

by **harry** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:41 am

There are different types of Crude Oil.

Oceanic plates that are recycled every 500 odd million years compared to continental plates that go for 2 or 3 billion years. This oil is renewable if you wait for it.

Sedimentary collected plants and animals. Shale oil

and so on.

Crude oil is mostly oragnic with high carbon molecules.

by **S. Bilderback** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:19 pm

ta152h0 wrote:For fear of showing some of my ignorance in public, but does anyone here know the chemical-mechanical reaction required to " make crude oil" ????

There is a debate if crude oil is the by-produce of ancient algae filled seabeds transformed over the eons to oil, or if the hydro-carbons are part of the "Star Stuff" that formed the Earth, oil on the moon could answer the question.
The chemical makeup of crude oil varies greatly across the planet, I haven't look into why, but something, either in the creating or preserving process causes a difference. Coal to natural gas are parts of the same chemical-mechanical reaction process as crude.

by **Empeda2** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:40 pm

Would need to be a bit warmer though.... :cold:

by **harry** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:44 am

Oils aints oils,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so to speak

As for methane:
"Neptune's blue color is largely the result of absorption of red light by methane in the atmosphere but there is some additional as-yet-unidentified chromophore which gives the clouds their rich blue tint."

http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/ngc/n2070.html

Where you have CH4 you will get C2H6 and so on than add Nitrogen and Oxygen and a bit of loving you will have amino acids the units of DNA.

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" ????

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

to go beyond from there

Good reasoning.

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.

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

Not that us Brits are that far behind I would have thought.....

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."

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.

Norval

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.

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.

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

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?

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.....

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.

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.

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...

Starship Asterisk*

Oil on the Moon?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Oil on the Moon?

Re: oil on the moon

oil on the moon

oil on the moon