¿Possible for LARGE oil reserves deep under Mars?

[mvp347]

I was thinking that when time comes to begin terraforming Mars, drilling for oil to burn in factories would help increase the greenhouse gases there to warm up the planet. Largely depleting the planet of it's black gold just like we are doing with our planet would help bring Mars to a climate sustainable for water to unfreeze and for humans to live without huge space suits.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Remember, oil is a <b>fossil</b> fuel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Not necessarily. The Russians do believe large reservoirs of mineral oil exist in Earth's crust (several kms in depth), brought by comets.<br />Many comets are covered with tar.<br />Titan has plastic components in atmosphere or on surface (polystyrene).<br />Gulf of mexico is oil-rich.<br /><br />Regards.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Good points. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

I don't see it being much help. Even if you accept the Global Warming Hypothesis, CO2 is a fairly poor greenhouse gas. The only way to get the Apocalypse Effect here is to put lots of feedbacks into the computer models- e.g. "fossil CO2 release warms atmosphere a bit, which releases more water vapour from the oceans, which warms the atmosphere, which releases more water vapour..." or "fossil CO2 release warms atmosphere a bit, which cause catastrophic release of methane hydrates from ocean bed" and so on.<br /><br />The overwhelmingly most significant greenhouse gas on Earth is water vapour. Without the feedbacks CO2 will have a pretty small effect and the Green Panic evaporates. Whether the feedbacks actually operate as modelled is extremely questionable.<br /><br />Mars is very different to Earth- it hasn't got the big oceans for instance, so feedbacks are at the very least very different. I don't think you'd get much of a greenhouse warming from oil burning, even if it were to exist there.

 

[MeteorWayne]

And you have hit the danger on the head.<br /><br />There are even other feedbacks you did not mention, like the change in albedo of the (especially) northern pole.<br /><br />And you did not mention the most likely tangible impact, the rising sea levels.<br /><br />Entire islands would be wiped off the map ( really just uninhabitable) with a 1 or 2 meter rise, not too far out of the projections for this century.<br /><br />In non island countries, this will displace millions of people from low lying coastal areas, not even counting the islands.<br /><br />Doesn't sound like practical or political fun to me.<br /><br />MW<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

Pity the sea levels aren't rising isn't it? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Current sea level rise is no more than it has been for the past couple of centuries, mere millimetres, despite Weird Al's unsupportable claims to the contrary.<br /><br />The problem is, you can say "this might happen" and go off on wild speculative trips, but that doesn't make it a respectable forecast. The models can't even begin to model one of the most important speculated feedbacks- albedo due to cloud cover. They simply can't achieve that level of granularity. It's no better than speculative science fiction.<br /><br />The one thing we can say with certainty that will ruin and destroy millions of lives is halting the development the Developing World desperately needs. Forcing those millions to a live and die in miserable poverty that us on the internets couldn't survive for a day is a certain feedback of Climate Change Policy, and that's a moral outrage. Once everybody in the Developing World can afford a car to drive to the supermarket in, and stock up on the same range of fresh commercially farmed food that we do, once they're not all trying to scratch an existence from subsistence farming, once they have comfortable, air conditioned houses with cheap, reliable energy supplies, plasma TVs, iPods and internets, then it might be worthwhile talking about halting development.<br /><br />I doubt they'll be much interested in it, though, to be honest.

 

[brellis]

The possibility of valuable mineral deposits on Mars begs the question: can we just declare some Martian mineral to be extremely valuable and jump-start private investment in Mars exploration that way? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I disagree.<br />Can you provide some data that says sea level isn't rising?<br /><br />I would suspect even GW skeptics have to acknowledge the data. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

So basically, you're asking me to prove the null hypothesis? Is that how post-normal science works?<br /><br />I can't prove that Alpha Centauri doesn't have an earth-like planet populated by invisible pink unicorns. Guess it must be true then.

 

[jaxtraw]

You've got the slightly awkward question of who owns Martian resources to get around first <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[MeteorWayne]

Not at all. Can you show me some sea level data that shows it is not rising?<br /><br />I doubt you can, so that is why I am asking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

Yea, damn. We'll prolly have wars over martian resources before the average Joe gets to go there <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

[[[We'll probably have wars over martian resources]]]<br /><br /> I won't worry that much. High-yield use of non-terrestrial resources will require far more mature technologies (and minds?). I cannot imagine that when we get such technology, we stupidly use it to tap resources at the bottom of a gravity well (Mars) instead of collecting them far more easily from asteroids or other minor bodies with a low escape velocity... <br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[brellis]

<i>Water</i> you saying? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">I cannot imagine that when we get such technology, we stupidly use it</font> -- Einstein's discovery led to nuclear technology which led to Hiroshima/Nagasake. There, thanks to mankind's flawed history I've done the impossible: proven a negative <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /><br /><br />It's just incredibly silly that mankind might exterminate itself over dwindling resources while simultaneously beginning to undertake the most fantastic missions of exploration, but "we am what we am" *shrug* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

You cut my sentence.<br />I have full confidence in our ability to do very stupid things. But there you were assuming there was an economical interest. So I guessed cupidity will help us being relatively efficient and not burn gigawatts to land and lift off if business is cheaper in the neighbourhood.<br /><br />Economic competition will no longer be called globalization but solarsystemisation <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />As you guess English not my mother tongue. It is unlawful to pun-ish me. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br />

 

[jaxtraw]

Okay, I'll pick apart what I posted to save you doing so. I said "Pity the sea levels aren't rising isn't it?"<br /><br />Which was something of a rhetorical throwaway; I should have terminated it with the word "unusually" or "significantly" as you can see from my next sentence-<br /><br />"Current sea level rise is no more than it has been for the past couple of centuries, mere millimetres, despite Weird Al's unsupportable claims to the contrary."<br /><br />Which was the more accurate. I was asserting that sea level has not risen abnormally- that there is no surge, since it's been rising since the last Ice Age. My assertion was that it is not rising additionally due to "Global Warming", not that it is not rising <i> at all.</i><br /><br />I'll post the link to good ol' Wikipedia which quotes the IPCC-<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise<br /><br />which notes, as I said "millimeters". <i>Some argue</i> that there has been an increase from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr. However, we must first note that this has been detected since satellite readings (increase in accuracy) and that such a small change, on a planet where parts of the crust are still rising or sinking due to the relief of Ice Age glaciation (e.g. here in the UK, our crust is pivoting with Scotland rising and Southern England falling) is simply too small to measure and quantify properly. There is no measurable warming effect on sea levels.<br /><br /><br />Now, I appreciate that you're a believer and I'm a skeptic, so we could argue until the cows come home or the mods get sick of it, throwing data at each other and debunking it, or not, and as always happens no conclusion would be reached because each side just denies that any proof or debunking has occurred.<br /><br />But in line with the space topic of this board, I'd like to add one final thought. The Greens have made it clear that their goal is reduction of the world economy- "negative

 

[jaxtraw]

The thing that fascinates me about colonisation throughout history is that it generally does the "Old Country" little practical good. If we send colonists to Mars, once they become self-sufficient their allegiance to America, China, whoever sent them, will fade. THey'll be Martians and want independence. So even if America gets there first and gets first dibs on the Mars oil <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> they'll lose it anyway to independent Mars.<br /><br />It's an interesting thought to me. We'll probably spend decades wrangling over which nation owns what- and then the Martians will give us the finger and claim it's theirs anyway <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[h2ouniverse]

Hmm.<br />"Colonists claiming independance" is not systematic. Actually, that occurred for the following colonizing nations: England, Spain, Portugal, the Arab World. Not for France, Russia or China. In these latter cases, many colonized peoples broke away (30+ countries from France, 10+ countries from Russia), but never the colonists themselves. So the places where settlers are majoritary(*) are still French or Russian or Chinese today...<br />Taiwan, resulting from the colonization by the Chinese of an aborigenal-populated island, finds it hard to declare independence from China, in spite of more than 50 years of separate government.<br /><br />(*) Quebec does not count: was taken by the Brits before Canadian independence.

 

[pyoko]

Where did the oil on the comets come from? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900" class="Apple-style-span">-pyoko</span> <span style="color:#333333" class="Apple-style-span">the</span> <span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span">duck </span></p><p><span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="color:#808080;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</span></span></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

From the oil wars that blew up the previous sun 6 billion years ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[pyoko]

What does that have to do with rubber ducks? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900" class="Apple-style-span">-pyoko</span> <span style="color:#333333" class="Apple-style-span">the</span> <span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span">duck </span></p><p><span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="color:#808080;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</span></span></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

hi H2O<br /><br />My cut of your sentence was in service of my <i>pun</i>-ishment, but also to make the general point that humanity is in dichotomy: we can make brilliant inventions, but we're just barely done - worse, we're not done <i>yet</i> - with being a bunch of stark raving mad monkeys throwing feces at each other.<br /><br />I admire your ability with English. You can even make good jokes in English. What is your original language?<br /><br />Back to the thread topic, I'm curious about mineral-derived oil possibly existing on Mars. As we get closer to solving the riddle of the vanished sea, more clues will turn up. Perhaps we'll find something deep in Victoria crater to help explain the geological history of Mars. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>The thing that fascinates me about colonisation throughout history is that it generally does the "Old Country" little practical good.</i><br /><br />During the period of overseas expansion the settling countries did extremely well indeed. Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, the Netherlands all rose to major power status because of the establishment of overseas settlements.<br /><br /><i>It's an interesting thought to me. We'll probably spend decades wrangling over which nation owns what- and then the Martians will give us the finger and claim it's theirs anyway</i><br /><br />Not necessarily. As others have pointed out, not all settler cultures want independence. Some hold quite fiercely to the ties with the original country. <br /><br />Nor is it always a case of giving the settling country "the finger". In many cases independence was encouraged by the founding country and evolved over time. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Carribbean states all have taken this path.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I can't let this go unchallenged! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><i>The Russians do believe large reservoirs of mineral oil exist in Earth's crust (several kms in depth), brought by comets.</i><br /><br />Which Russians? Every Russian book on petroleum geology I have access to subscribes to the biogenic origin of oil. The evidence for the biogenic origin of terrestrial hydroarbons is overwhelming.<br /><br /><i>Many comets are covered with tar.</i> <br /><br />Which ones? How tar like is the material? Just because something is organic rich does not make it tar.<br /><br /><i>Titan has plastic components in atmosphere or on surface (polystyrene). </i><br /><br />Do you have a source for this? Titan's atmosphere contains organic compounds, but this does not mean that it is covered in plastic!<br /><br /><i>Gulf of mexico is oil-rich.</i><br /><br />Sorry, I don't see the connection here.<br /><br />Jon <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>