Oil on other Planets?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

themisfit610

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2006
1,352
2
81
Yeah... space exploration is valauble. Even if it's hideously expensive and penis waving. It stimulates a lot of growth in aerospace and other high technologies. At least it did back in the Apollo days.

It's totally inevitable that we're going to have to get off Earth eventually or die out, but that's not happening for a long time.

We should absolutely continue space research and exploration - but in a mostly robotic context. At some point it may be feasible to build something like a space elevator. At that point, it's not unrealistic to start thinking about mining other planets for resources and
colonization etc, since the most formidable barrier (launch costs) can be massively reduced.

But we're hundreds of years away from that reality. Oh well... for now it's pretty frakking cool to get pictures from Mars and HDTV from the Moon :)

Research into fusion power is the long term solution. For now, the new wave of solar and biofuel wil have to do!

~MiSfit
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza

2. Human exploration of space is a silly idea. (It won't.)

LOL. It's an awesome idea. And space exploration money isn't causing the problems you implicitly infer them to be responsible for.

("meanwhile, the US isn't honoring its international agreements to fund particle and fusion research, partical accelators in the U.S. are being shut down, and the majority of researchers in this critical area are no longer in the U.S.")

 

PolymerTim

Senior member
Apr 29, 2002
383
0
0
Originally posted by: Geniere
Originally posted by: BrownTown Also, concerning usage of natural gas I am referring to tar sands there not oil shale because that is the only real example of a REAL process being used to extract oil from these sorts of areas.
How the Canadians process oil sand deposits is their business. The use of natural gas is not even being considered in the US nor, I?ve read, will it be used in future Canadian development.

I'm not arguing against the concept, but you should double check this particular fact. Some companies are planning to use natural gas to aid in oil extraction (although not all plan to combust it).
From you own links posted above: http://www.mines.edu/magazine/...es/oil_from_stone.html
Energy efficiency is critical. EGL plans to use the natural gas produced in the retorting process (about a third of the product) to heat the shale...
Kevin Shurtleff, founder and president of Mountain West Energy, is developing an in situ gas extraction process in which natural gas, heated and pressurized at the surface, is injected into the deposit, heating the shale by convection as the heat rises up through the deposit, "sweeping" hydrocarbon rich vapors to the surface for collection.
Initially, Mountain West plans to use natural gas (eventually collected on site from the gas fraction of the product) to power their operation. "Ultimately the natural gas we produce we'd prefer to sell, and move to a solar thermal process...
 

BirdDad

Golden Member
Nov 25, 2004
1,131
0
71
Originally posted by: DrPizza
If there was oil on other planets we could use it
How are we going to use it?

1. If you're suggesting that if we advanced our technology enough, we could bring it back, be aware that it would take more energy to get the oil off a planet than the oil contains.

2. Human exploration of space is a silly idea. Even the space station is a waste of money. (meanwhile, the US isn't honoring its international agreements to fund particle and fusion research, partical accelators in the U.S. are being shut down, and the majority of researchers in this critical area are no longer in the U.S.

Oh wait... the space station isn't a *complete* waste of money. Pretty soon we're going to know if experimentally, the laws of physics are verified. They're going to see if a boomerang works in micro-gravity. (It won't.)

he didn't say that we would be the ones trying to use it
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: BirdDad
Originally posted by: DrPizza
If there was oil on other planets we could use it
How are we going to use it?

1. If you're suggesting that if we advanced our technology enough, we could bring it back, be aware that it would take more energy to get the oil off a planet than the oil contains.

2. Human exploration of space is a silly idea. Even the space station is a waste of money. (meanwhile, the US isn't honoring its international agreements to fund particle and fusion research, partical accelators in the U.S. are being shut down, and the majority of researchers in this critical area are no longer in the U.S.

Oh wait... the space station isn't a *complete* waste of money. Pretty soon we're going to know if experimentally, the laws of physics are verified. They're going to see if a boomerang works in micro-gravity. (It won't.)

he didn't say that we would be the ones trying to use it

Its still a silly question, even if you are thinking like "how would the industrial revolution ever happen without oil" that would be a irrelevant difference between out species and whatever other species we were to discover that it would be meaningless to even consider.
 

Geniere

Senior member
Sep 3, 2002
336
0
0


Originally posted by: PolymerTim...I'm not arguing against the concept, but you should double check this particular fact. Some companies are planning to use natural gas ...

You are correct. I should have distinguished between the "natural gas" released via the in-situ process vs. that brought in from remote locations. Further, I should have mentioned that external energy sources are needed to initiate the processes, perhaps for several years.

The intent of my first post was to alleviate the OP's concern re: lack of fossil fuels. He should not be concerned. The world?s energy resources are enormous. In addition to the enormous quantities of shale oil, there exists an even greater amount of methane gas. Extraction of these fuels is merely an engineering problem.

Of course burning fossil fuels, burning so-called green fuels, in fact burning anything to provide our energy needs is dumb. We haven?t needed to use a chemical process to extract energy since Ferme played with neutrons during WWII.

?There is not a shortage of fissionable fuels.


 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: manowar821
Seriously....? How could anyone but fundamentalists or narcissists think that space exploration is worthless?
If memory serves, I think you'll find DrPizza shares my view that space exploration is a great thing, but given our technology, sending humans into space is the wrong way to do it.

That is correct. There's a lot to be learned from space. Issues such as global warming could be put to rest if the (paid for, built, and sitting in storage) DSCVR satellite would be launched, but it's not. Instead, we have astronauts hitting golf balls into space from the space station. There are tons of promising research areas that would/could make the planet a better place for all of us. Manned space missions is probably close to the bottom of that list. Robots can do virtually anything that a human could do. I wish I had the exact quote from someone at Nasa when questioned about this - his response had something to do with humans being able to react quicker, because it takes so long for a signal to travel to the earth and back. I don't think he received this reply, but it would probably have silenced him: "React? React to what?"

Manned space missions appeal to the public at large - people who have poor math and science skills and can't think it through. Just as much science can be done with robots and at a small fraction of the price. You don't have to worry about bringing robots back home either.


Also, Geniere, in regard to what I said about the current president. I'm far from a politically involved person. I don't care if someone's a democrat or a republican. I just don't like it when someone's an idiot and runs the country. Since I'd be accused of cherry-picking my facts, I'll suggest to you to simply google: "President Bush" and Science.
It's amazing what goes on and how political the science world has become as a result of our president, his policies, and apparently pay-back against the people who disagree with him.
 

Geniere

Senior member
Sep 3, 2002
336
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza..Also, Geniere, in regard to what I said about the current president. I'm far from a politically involved person. I don't care if someone's a democrat or a republican. I just don't like it when someone's an idiot and runs the country. Since I'd be accused of cherry-picking my facts, I'll suggest to you to simply google: "President Bush" and Science.
It's amazing what goes on and how political the science world has become as a result of our president, his policies, and apparently pay-back against the people who disagree with him.

Your repetition does not elicit fact from fiction, although, as Goebbels demonstrated, it does sway the masses. A president makes political decisions; a scientist does research; sometimes the two are in harmony, sometimes they are not. You have your opinion I have mine. I am quite certain my opinion is infinitely superior to yours.

The previous statement should make it perfectly clear why political rhetoric should be avoided in technical discussions.

Yes you are ?cherry picking facts? as you offer no corroboration. It falls on you to provide support for your opinion else your opinion is, in my opinion, a worthless opinion.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don't support policy positions...

"This administration has distanced itself from scientific information,'' said Gottfried <Cornell University>. He said this is part of a larger effort to let politics dominate pure science...

NASA has gotten a budget boost, but most of the new money will be going to the space shuttle, space station and Bush's plan to explore the Moon and Mars. What is suffering is the space agency's scientific research efforts, she said.
here


Bush does not accept evolution, the central coordinating concept of modern biology. According to the New York Times (October 29, 2000), he believes that "the jury is still out" on evolution, and moreover, the Times reports, he "doesn't really care about that kind of thing."

In March, the Pentagon terminated the contract of the "Jason" panel ? an advisory group composed of forty to fifty elite scientists. John Marburger, Bush's science advisor, describes the group as "working scientists ? top-notch people who are experts in their fields". One member suggested that the termination Jason followed from an attempt by the Bush administration "to place political appointees to [the] scientific panel." (NY TIMES, 3/23/02)


Critics of Bush's "National Missile Defense System" face retaliation by the administration. Two critics in particular are worthy of note. The published and public dissents of Dr. Theodore Postal of MIT have cost him federal research grants, along with threats of research cutbacks to MIT. In addition, Dr. Nira Schwartz, a scientist and computer expert, was fired by the defense contractor, TRW, immediately after determining that the design of the defense missiles (i.e., "kill vehicles") was fatally flawed. In early march, the General Accounting Office confirmed her findings.

In a quixotic decision in August, 2001, Bush "in effect banned federal funding for human embryo stem-cell research" (Bioethicist, Arthur Caplan). In a monstrous concession to his right-wing constituency, Bush proclaimed that all human embryonic life (i.e., "babies") is sacred and thus beyond the reach of medical research, however valuable that research might prove to fully formed (post-born) human beings, and notwithstanding the fact that otherwise thousands of embryonic cell samples, fated to be discarded, would be available for research. As a result of Bush's decree, the vanguard of medical research may move from the United States to Europe.

Last month, the US Geological Survey submitted the results of a twelve year study which concluded that oil exploration in ANWR would adversely affect the habitat of the wildlife of the region. In the spirit of "don't come to me unless you have the ?facts' I want," Interior Secretary Gail Norton ordered a reassessment and, sure enough, in just a week got the desired result: arctic wildlife just love oil rigs.

Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply order up their own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda. Indeed, so extreme is this campaign that more than sixty scientists, including Nobel laureates and medical experts, released a statement on February 18 that accuses the Bush Administration of deliberately distorting scientific fact "for partisan political ends."

<regarding 9/11> Despite the Environmental Protection Agency's claims that air quality was safe, Kevin refused to return and we closed the office. Many workers did not have that option; their employers relied on the EPA's nine press releases between September and December of 2001 reassuring the public about the wholesome air quality downtown. We have since learned that the government was lying to us. An Inspector General's report released last August revealed that the EPA's data did not support those assurances and that its press releases were being drafted or doctored by White House officials intent on reopening Wall Street.

I also recall the case of Dr. James Zahn, a nationally respected microbiologist with the Agriculture Department's research service, who accepted my invitation to speak to an April 2002 conference of more than 1,000 family farm advocates and environmental and civic leaders in Clear Lake, Iowa. In a rigorous taxpayer-funded study, Zahn had identified bacteria that can make people sick--and that are resistant to antibiotics--in the air surrounding industrial-style hog farms. His studies proved that billions of these "superbugs" were traveling across property lines daily, endangering the health of neighbors and their herds. I was shocked when Zahn canceled his appearance on the day of the conference under orders from the Agriculture Department in Washington.

The Administration has taken special pains to shield Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, which is part of an industry that has contributed $58 million to Republicans since 2000. Halliburton is the leading practitioner of a process used in extracting oil and gas known as hydraulic fracturing, in which benzene is injected into underground formations. EPA scientists studying the process in 2002 found that it could contaminate ground-water supplies in excess of federal drinking water standards. A week after reporting their findings to Congressional staff members, however, they revised the data to indicate that benzene levels would not exceed government standards. In a letter to Representative Henry Waxman, EPA officials said the change was made based on "industry feedback."

But suppressing or altering science can be a tricky business; the Bush Administration has found it easier at times simply to arrange to get the results it wants. A case in point is the decision in July by the EPA's regional office overseeing the western Everglades to accept a study financed predominantly by developers, which concludes that wetlands discharge more pollutants than they absorb. There was no peer review or public comment. With its approval, the EPA is giving developers credit for improving water quality by replacing natural wetlands with golf courses and other developments.

In a similar case, last November the EPA cut a private deal with a pesticide manufacturer to take over federal studies of a pesticide it manufactures. Atrazine is the most heavily utilized weedkiller in America. First approved in 1958, by the 1980s it had been identified as a potential carcinogen associated with high incidences of prostate cancer among workers at manufacturing facilities. Testing by the US Geological Survey regularly finds alarming concentrations of Atrazine in drinking water across the corn belt. Even worse, last year scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, found that Atrazine at one-thirtieth the government's "safe" 3 parts per billion level causes grotesque deformities in frogs, including multiple sets of organs. And this year epidemiologists from the University of Missouri found reproductive consequences in humans associated with Atrazine, including male semen counts in farm communities that are 50 percent below normal. Iowa scientists are finding similar results in a current study.
The Bush Administration reacted to the frightening findings not by banning this dangerous chemical, as the European Union has, but by taking the studies away from EPA scientists and, in an unprecedented move, giving the chemical's manufacturer, Switzerland-based Syngenta, control over federal research. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sherry Ford, a spokesperson for Syngenta, praised without irony the advantages of having the company monitor its own product. "This is one way we can ensure it's not presenting any risk to the environment."

Most federal employees have gone along with the Bush Administration's wishes, but a few have tried to stand up for sound science. The results are predictable. When a team of government biologists indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers was violating the Endangered Species Act in managing the flow of the Missouri River, the group was quickly replaced by an industry-friendly panel. (In an unexpected--and fortunate--development, the new panel ultimately declined to adopt the White House's pro-barge-industry position and upheld the decision to manage the river to protect imperiled species.) Similarly, last April the EPA suddenly dismantled an advisory panel that had spent nearly twenty-one months developing rules for stringent regulation of industrial emissions of mercury

The Bush Administration appointees all had coal industry pedigrees. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao (the wife of Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate's biggest recipient of industry largesse) appointed Dave Lauriski, a former executive with Energy West Mining, as the new director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which oversaw the investigation. His deputy assistant secretary was John Caylor, an Anamax Mining alumnus. His other deputy assistant, John Correll, had worked for both Amax and Peabody Coal. Oppegard, the leader of the federal team, was fired on the day Bush was inaugurated in 2001. All eight members of the team except Spadaro signed off on a whitewashed investigation report. Spadaro, like the others, was harassed but flat-out refused to sign. In April of 2001 Spadaro resigned from the team and filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Labor Department. Last June 4 he was placed on administrative leave--a prelude to getting fired. Bush Administration officials accuse Spadaro of "abusing his authority" for allowing a handicapped instructor to have free room and board at a training academy he oversees, an arrangement approved by his superiors. An internal report vindicated Spadaro's criticisms of the investigation, but the Administration is still going after his job. "I've been regulating mining since 1966," Spadaro told me. "This is the most lawless administration I've encountered. They have no regard for protecting miners or the people in mining communities. They are without scruples."

Now Congress and this White House have used federal power for the same purpose. Led by the President, the Republicans have gutted scientific research budgets and politicized science within the federal agencies. The very leaders who so often condemn the trend toward moral relativism are fostering and encouraging the trend toward scientific relativism. The very ideologues who derided Bill Clinton as a liar have now institutionalized dishonesty and made it the reigning culture of America's federal agencies.

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.
From various sources, using just the first 10 links found using google and the search phrase I suggested above: "President Bush" science

I don't know if you really pay attention to what's going on in the scientific community. I've been following as much news in the science community as possible. The degree to which the scientific community is marginalized and ignored by the current administration is unprecedented.

Would you like me to compile 20 or 30 pages worth of material? Would you even read it?

edit: why not read the report in the bolded section above... and, that was from years ago, earlier in his administration. Things haven't gotten better.




 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: Stonejaw
I was wondering if it is possible that oil could be on other planets. Now I know that oil is a byproduct of biomass, so that there would have had to be life on said planet at some point. I dont just mean planets in our solar system but others. This raises some interesting questions about life on other planets. For instance what if an intelligent form of life evolved on another planet, would it be able to become highly advanced without the large avialability of a cheap energy source such as oil? Are we extremely lucky that oil happened to be on Earth. Without the discovery of oil we surley would not have had the industrial revolution.
If there was oil on other planets we could use it and it would be a huge discovery. Or perhaps there is substances on other planets like oil that could be used for cheap energy.

Anyways I just wanted to see what others think about this.


of course oil was a great boon to human civilization, but imo modern technology could have still arisen without it, just more slowly.
Liquid fuels could have instead come from plants as alcohol and electricity from nuclear power.
 

Nathelion

Senior member
Jan 30, 2006
697
1
0
Originally posted by: Geniere
Originally posted by: DrPizza..Also, Geniere, in regard to what I said about the current president. I'm far from a politically involved person. I don't care if someone's a democrat or a republican. I just don't like it when someone's an idiot and runs the country. Since I'd be accused of cherry-picking my facts, I'll suggest to you to simply google: "President Bush" and Science.
It's amazing what goes on and how political the science world has become as a result of our president, his policies, and apparently pay-back against the people who disagree with him.

Your repetition does not elicit fact from fiction, although, as Goebbels demonstrated, it does sway the masses. A president makes political decisions; a scientist does research; sometimes the two are in harmony, sometimes they are not. You have your opinion I have mine. I am quite certain my opinion is infinitely superior to yours.

The previous statement should make it perfectly clear why political rhetoric should be avoided in technical discussions.

Yes you are ?cherry picking facts? as you offer no corroboration. It falls on you to provide support for your opinion else your opinion is, in my opinion, a worthless opinion.

You mentioned the nazis. As per Godwin's Law, you automatically lose the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
In other news, the U.S. accuses Martians of harboring a secret WMD program.
 

Geniere

Senior member
Sep 3, 2002
336
0
0


Originally posted by: Nathelion?You mentioned the nazis. As per Godwin's Law?

The mark arrives as expected. Anyone else think there's a law that ends debate?

Thank you for invoking Godwin?s Law; in doing so you insure this political debate survives indefinitely, another good reason to never advance a political agenda in a technical forum.

Originally posted by: DrPizza edit: why not read the report in the bolded section above... and, that was from years ago, earlier in his administration. Things haven't gotten better.

In your large post, the edit (above) contained the only statement of worth. The electorate was aware of the President?s agenda and in 2004 elected him to implement it. He made the correct political decisions, and things are much, much better. That?s my opinion so obviously it?s the superior opinion.

Originally posted by: DrPizza Would you like me to compile 20 or 30 pages worth of material? Would you even read it?
Yes. :thumbsup: No. :D

You miss the point! If the ?God of Fidelity? determined your political opinion to be correct, it would not matter. Political opinions do not belong in a technical forum.

What does any of this have to do with oil resources?

...
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: Geniere


Originally posted by: Nathelion?You mentioned the nazis. As per Godwin's Law?

The mark arrives as expected. Anyone else think there's a law that ends debate?

Thank you for invoking Godwin?s Law; in doing so you insure this political debate survives indefinitely, another good reason to never advance a political agenda in a technical forum.

Originally posted by: DrPizza edit: why not read the report in the bolded section above... and, that was from years ago, earlier in his administration. Things haven't gotten better.

In your large post, the edit (above) contained the only statement of worth. The electorate was aware of the President?s agenda and in 2004 elected him to implement it. He made the correct political decisions, and things are much, much better. That?s my opinion so obviously it?s the superior opinion.

Originally posted by: DrPizza Would you like me to compile 20 or 30 pages worth of material? Would you even read it?
Yes. :thumbsup: No. :D

You miss the point! If the ?God of Fidelity? determined your political opinion to be correct, it would not matter. Political opinions do not belong in a technical forum.

What does any of this have to do with oil resources?

...

Good point, you went off with your own political views and then broke one of the most well known rules of internet debate and then blame the issue on others? There is a reason so many people ascribe to Goodwin's law and it is the fact that anyone who would bring up Nazi's in relation to trivial things is not the sort of person who can be expected to debate rationally. It is absurd to make the implication (no matter how vague) that DrPizza (a well respected member of this forum as well as moderator) is similar to a Nazi propagandist. DrPizza is one of hte best people on this forum at making well reason arguments and supporting them with relevant facts or the reasoning behind his opinion, of all the people on this forum to make such a claim against I would say he is one of the least fitting, the same however, can not be said about you unfortunately.
 

SonicIce

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2004
4,771
0
76
By the time we have the technology to harvest it, we won't need it anymore.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
Oil may exist on other planets
It isn't worth getting just as when it take more energy to get barrel of oil than is in oil on earth.
Mining Helium 3 from the moon might be worth it if your going for energy.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Trillions of stars multiplied by Trillions of galaxies... the answer to your question is, probably yes. Odd question to be asking though, oil of all things.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Even the space station is a waste of money.

It serves more purpose as a diplomatic tool than anything else, maybe that in itself is worthwhile.

I'm pretty sure our promised contributions to ITER served as a diplomatic tool, too... so much for that theory
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: desy
Oil may exist on other planets
It isn't worth getting just as when it take more energy to get barrel of oil than is in oil on earth.
Mining Helium 3 from the moon might be worth it if your going for energy.

Yeah, whenever we get fusion working for us. Unfortunately, a He3 fusion reactor will be even more difficult to get working than the D+T reactors, since the theoretical energy output from any He3 fusion reaction is less than from D+T fusion.

I hope we can see some sweet, delicious He3 fusion reactors in my lifetime :p
 

wseyller

Senior member
May 16, 2004
824
0
71
The Decepticons used their energon cubes to store energy to take back to cybertron. That was over 20 years ago. Surely we have the technology to do the same.
 

spikespiegal

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2005
1,219
9
76
In the end it is a huge waste of money for minimal scientific gain.

:thumbsup:

Unfortunatley, we have a generation that grew up on Star Trek and Star Wars that think 'space' in indeed a 'Final Frontier' rather than the empty vacuum that it is. There's nothing there........so, let's stop wasting resources going there.

Same with moon freaks who want to waste a trillion dollars going back to that stupid rock. Let's spend the money on something that has actual scientific merit - like a robot lander to Europa or something.

I'm also not sure why we are having a hydro-carbon debate either. How far do we have to dig a hole into the earth's crust to get all the free energy we need again?
 

Nathelion

Senior member
Jan 30, 2006
697
1
0
If you really want to solve the world's power problems, go build a dam across the Strait of Gibraltar.