Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Abiotic Oil

  1. #1 Abiotic Oil 
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    What do you guys think of abiogenic petroleum origin?

    Here is a website dealing with it if you don't know what I'm talking about: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/


    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Seems pretty far fetched.

    That sight looses considerable credibility by even going as far as to claim there isn't biogenic oil. There's lot of evidence going back nearly a century of the biological origin of crude oil, and we have a good understanding of the chemistry as well--including many chemicals that could only come from surface plants.

    While there's little doubt that organic gasses can come from abiotic processes nothing in the article is compelling to show that those processes are happening on earth in large quantities. The only exception is probably methane that's a main constituent of volcanoes.

    I do wonder about the early pre-biotic soup that some think existed prior to the origin of life. If it existed what happened to that sea of hydrocarbons?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Seems pretty far fetched.
    Why? Is the National Academy of Sciences "far fetched"?

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full

    That sight looses considerable credibility by even going as far as to claim there isn't biogenic oil. There's lot of evidence going back nearly a century of the biological origin of crude oil
    What evidence would that be?

    and we have a good understanding of the chemistry as well--including many chemicals that could only come from surface plants.
    How many plants does it take to make a barrel of crude oil?

    While there's little doubt that organic gasses can come from abiotic processes nothing in the article is compelling to show that those processes are happening on earth in large quantities. The only exception is probably methane that's a main constituent of volcanoes.
    Not according to the National Academy of Sciences. According to them oil can only be formed at pressures above 30 kilobar which corresponds to a depth of 100 kilometers deep in the mantle. See link above.

    I do wonder about the early pre-biotic soup that some think existed prior to the origin of life.
    "At this stage you must admit that whatever is seen to be sentient is nevertheless composed of atoms that are insentient. The phenomena open to our observation do not contradict this conclusion or conflict with it. Rather they lead us by the hand and compel us to believe that the animate is born, as I maintain, of the insentient." -- Lucretius

    what happened to that sea of hydrocarbons?
    Right underneath us.

    "Oil is the creature of common Earth forces on common Earth materials." -- Wallace E. Pratt, Oil In The Earth, 1942
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    I'm far from an expert on this subject--my own education being in atmospheric science.

    To answer you're questions though, I'll put up what appears to be a comprehensive review of the subject.

    http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

    I'll highlight a few points made in the paper:

    These data show that the majority
    of the world’s oil and gas is very young with 50 % generated
    since the Oligocene. Burial of global organic carbon
    during this period corresponds closely to the deposition of
    major source rocks for oil and gas (Berner, 2003).
    In other word all the oil comes from biological related source rocks from the last 600 million years or so. This is strongly supports the standard ideas that oil is biological in origin, while simultaneously creating significant problems for abiotic hypothesis as a primary or even major source of oil.

    Another strong point is the carbon ratio from methane in association with known abiotic methane is very different from methane associated with oil deposits.

    The author covers that the supposed strongest evidence of abiotic oil, that in Russia, was in fact discovered using conventional methods based on source rocks etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    How many plants does it take to make a barrel of crude oil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I'm far from an expert on this subject--my own education being in atmospheric science.

    To answer you're questions though, I'll put up what appears to be a comprehensive review of the subject.

    http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

    I'll highlight a few points made in the paper:

    These data show that the majority
    of the world’s oil and gas is very young with 50 % generated
    since the Oligocene. Burial of global organic carbon
    during this period corresponds closely to the deposition of
    major source rocks for oil and gas (Berner, 2003).
    Yeah, unfortunately that is all wrong and your source doesn't even know what abiotic theory states. Your source claims that abiotic theory says that oil is formed in the crust of the earth. That is incorrect. Abiotic theory says oil is formed in the mantle.

    In other word all the oil comes from biological related source rocks from the last 600 million years or so.
    Another factual error. So-called "source rocks" show uneven distribution in time. Oil has been found in volcanic igneous rock and in sediments across all strata from Archaean to Quaternary. The Dnieper-Donetsk basin has no so-called "source rock."

    This is strongly supports the standard ideas that oil is biological in origin, while simultaneously creating significant problems for abiotic hypothesis as a primary or even major source of oil.
    Obviously you didn't read anything I posted. Oh well.

    Another strong point is the carbon ratio from methane in association with known abiotic methane is very different from methane associated with oil deposits.
    What "carbon ratio" are you refering to? In what way is CH4 different from CH4?

    The author covers that the supposed strongest evidence of abiotic oil, that in Russia, was in fact discovered using conventional methods based on source rocks etc.
    The author is factually challenged. He doesn't even know what abiotic theory says.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    How many plants does it take to make a barrel of crude oil?
    A great many, most are probably marine diatoms.

    Yeah, unfortunately that is all wrong and your source doesn't even know what abiotic theory states. Your source claims that abiotic theory says that oil is formed in the crust of the earth. That is incorrect. Abiotic theory says oil is formed in the mantle.
    I hope you're not serious. He discusses mantle right in the extract....

    The Dnieper-Donetsk basin has no so-called "source rock."
    That's simply wrong. The USGS discusses them in this report. No abiotic explanations required.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/b2201-e.pdf

    Obvious oil moves as well so it not so important where it's found which can be under capping geology such as salt domes or under more recent volcanic rock--but that source rocks are present as well.

    What "carbon ratio" are you refering to? In what way is CH4 different from CH4?
    Different carbon isotopes. As one example, methanogens which are part of biologic production of oil prefer C12 over C13.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    How many plants does it take to make a barrel of crude oil?
    A great many, most are probably marine diatoms.
    That sounds more like religion than science to me. How many diatoms per barrel?

    Yeah, unfortunately that is all wrong and your source doesn't even know what abiotic theory states. Your source claims that abiotic theory says that oil is formed in the crust of the earth. That is incorrect. Abiotic theory says oil is formed in the mantle.
    I hope you're not serious. He discusses mantle right in the extract....
    Then Glasby contradicts himself. Glasby says and I quote directly from the link you provided, "Thomas Gold's theory [It's not Gold's theory, yet another factual error on Glasby's part] involves ... the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper levels of the earth's crust." Factually incorrect at best or Glasby is lying at worst. And yes, I am serious. I don't take Glasby seriously. He's a joke. Abiotic theory says it's impossible for oil to form in the crust.

    The USGS discusses them in this report. No abiotic explanations required.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/b2201-e.pdf
    The US State Department contradicts the USGS: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...ellep0.7720453

    Obvious oil moves as well so it not so important where it's found which can be under capping geology such as salt domes or under more recent volcanic rock--but that source rocks are present as well.
    Every so-called "source rock" has a volcanic igneous rock underneath it.

    What "carbon ratio" are you refering to? In what way is CH4 different from CH4?
    Different carbon isotopes. As one example, methanogens which are part of biologic production of oil prefer C12 over C13.
    Lack of C13 isotope proves nothing: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/200...s-nothing.html
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Then Glasby contradicts himself. Glasby says and I quote directly from the link you provided, "Thomas Gold's theory [It's not Gold's theory, yet another factual error on Glasby's part] involves ... the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper levels of the earth's crust." Factually incorrect at best or Glasby is lying at worst.
    I don't see the contradiction as all..Gold's papers are referenced in the review...and it's very clear Gold's theory is a combination of geologically abiotic production of hydrocarbons from the mantle with biological production in the deep crust as explained in his (1992) paper "The Deep Hot Biosphere."


    The US State Department contradicts the USGS: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...ellep0.7720453
    No contradiction here either. One is a simple press release of a paper with possible implication on maters of state completely without evaluation of credibility, the other a report on the geology of a region by the agency tasked specifically to do such things. It's silly to even compare them.

    Appears as a badly constructed blog rambling that gets as desperate as try to use complete irrelevant star ratios . I'll look up Kasting's comments though, he was one of my favorite professors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Then Glasby contradicts himself. Glasby says and I quote directly from the link you provided, "Thomas Gold's theory [It's not Gold's theory, yet another factual error on Glasby's part] involves ... the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper levels of the earth's crust." Factually incorrect at best or Glasby is lying at worst.
    I don't see the contradiction as all..Gold's papers are referenced in the review...and it's very clear Gold's theory is a combination of geologically abiotic production of hydrocarbons from the mantle with biological production in the deep crust as explained in his (1992) paper "The Deep Hot Biosphere."
    I suggest you actually read The Deep Hot Biosphere so you can comment intelligently. Abiotic theory DOES NOT say that complex hydrocarbons are formed in the crust as claimed by the misinformed propagandist Glasby. Fossil fuel theory says oil is formed in the crust; abiotic theory says hydrocarbons can only be formed in the mantle.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    I suggest you actually read The Deep Hot Biosphere so you can comment
    Go ahead help yourself--I already did.
    Here's the paper:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/89/13/6045.full.pdf+html

    Though not part of this paper, he ties it into a broader hypothesis that includes stuff like subsurface crustal biosystems might be converting methane into oils, and that explains why most of the oils have biosignatures either because of life creating the oil, or contamination. It seems to be an evolution of ideas started in Russia before we knew about continental drift and an attempt to answer lots of contrary evidence.

    But it doesn't go far enough with regard to oil. None of ideas, for example, explain the biomarkers - such as porphyrins, isoprenoids, pristane, phytane, cholestane, terpines, and clorins - which are related to biochemicals in chlorophyll--geologist even use these to ID specific source rocks.

    You couple that with the fact that Russia, even the places where these ideas were supposed to be most relevant, has almost ceased to make any new discoveries of oil.

    Now I don't think Gold is a crackpot, and I think his ideas that biologicals exist pretty far down in the crust are probably right and have implications for our search for life on other planets.


    That being said, you asked what our opinion of abiotic oil was.
    The evidence suggest it's far fetched, either not happening at all, or not in meaningful quantities to matter for our search for more oil.

    --
    PS You start civil with a light toned:
    "What do you guys think of abiogenic petroleum origin?" with a link to a blog.

    But as soon as a review of the ideas in a peer-review journal article are put forth you immediately accuse the authors of lying, and those that support standard biologic origin of sounding like a religion? Unless you've got some other evidence that suggest they aren't credible or have some reason to deliberately mislead us, the tone is unnecessary and discourages folks from answering your first question. Keeping discussions light and informational make for much better debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Go ahead help yourself--I already did.
    Abiotic theory says that petroleum is formed in the mantle not the crust. This is very basic. This is a fundamental misunderstanding and therefore Glasby has no credibility whatsoever: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full


    None of ideas, for example, explain the biomarkers - such as porphyrins, isoprenoids, pristane, phytane, cholestane, terpines, and clorins - which are related to biochemicals in chlorophyll--geologist even use these to ID specific source rocks.
    There is no such thing as so-called "biomarkers" in crude oil: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

    Lack of C13 isotope is meaningless: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/200...s-nothing.html

    In fact all oil contains abiomarkers such as molecular diamondoids which can only be formed in the mantle: http://moleculardiamond.chevron.com/

    Not to mention other rare earth elements: http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/...am/A112905.htm

    As you can see, ICP-MS geochemical analysis proved conclusively that all oil is inorganic.

    And there are no such thing as mythological "source rocks." Every sedimentary so-called "source rock" in the world has a volcanic igneous rock and the mantle underneath it.

    You couple that with the fact that Russia, even the places where these ideas were supposed to be most relevant, has almost ceased to make any new discoveries of oil.
    LOL. You're joking right? Before the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep abiotic petroleum origin, Baku was in decline and people like you said Russia had no more oil. Post Kudryavtsev, Russia is now the biggest producer of petroleum in the world.

    The evidence suggest it's far fetched, either not happening at all, or not in meaningful quantities to matter for our search for more oil.
    You don't have any evidence. What evidence?

    PS You start civil with a light toned:
    "What do you guys think of abiogenic petroleum origin?" with a link to a blog.

    But as soon as a review of the ideas in a peer-review journal article are put forth you immediately accuse the authors of lying
    Glasby isn't peer reviewed...LOL. He wrote it himself. The National Academy of Sciences article I linked to is peer reviewed but you choose to ignore it.

    and those that support standard biologic origin of sounding like a religion? Unless you've got some other evidence that suggest they aren't credible or have some reason to deliberately mislead us, the tone is unnecessary and discourages folks from answering your first question. Keeping discussions light and informational make for much better debate.
    I've already provided the evidence and I encourage you to reread the posts above. If you didn't just ignore everything I post, I would have a more friendly tone.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    But as soon as a review of the ideas in a peer-review journal article are put forth you immediately accuse the authors of lying
    Glasby isn't peer reviewed...LOL. He wrote it himself.
    You're wrong here, and don't seem to understand what "peer review" means. It doesn't mean a long line of authors--it's almost always means anonymously reviewed by other experts in the field. Understanding what it means is a vital skill to being a critical thinking when sorting out science from much of the pseudo science that's on the web.

    Resource Geology is a peer reviewed scientific journal. Specifically, from their own web site:
    "The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the research and its significance to our readership. Except where otherwise stated, manuscripts are peer reviewed by two anonymous reviewers and the Editor. Final acceptance or rejection rests with the Editorial Board, who reserves the right to refuse any material for publication."
    They follow pretty standard process close to that shared by many scientific journals, including the American Meteorological Societies' set of journals who've peer review process I'm most familiar with.

    The credibility of a source is one of the first things anyone should check. The peer review process doesn't rule out gross errors or deliberate misinformation, but it goes far towards achieving that goals. Of course articles in themselves don't constitute proof until their repeated and generally accepted by other experts in those fields--if the article is accepted by it's own community you see it heavily referenced in a couple years. Of course contrary articles crop up as well if others can't repeat the results or find a better explanation--this is how science works. Blogs, media articles, forums etc don't get this filter and should always be viewed with a jaundiced eye, especially if they deliberately cherry pick dated materials or if they pull from seemingly authoritative sources without going into them in any detail--making it more like a shout out than a serious presentation of the topic at hand.

    The last crazy thing about this discussion I think I'll comment on is the extent some of the abiotic supporters will go--such as Gold's assertion at one point that oil can't be produced from biological materials. That's a darn shame really, since chemist have been doing it in labs for nearly 80 years, and are continuing to do so using similar chemistry to produce biodiesels in the near future from algae.

    I didn't ignore your Kenney's article entirely, I just didn't find it too compelling. Is anyone doubting that hydrocarbons can be made in the mantle? We already know methane can be. It's just a long ways from simple hydrocarbon to oil, and there's no proof of it being made in significant quantities--or at least within reach for practical extraction.

    Enjoy. Looking forward to your next thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    But as soon as a review of the ideas in a peer-review journal article are put forth you immediately accuse the authors of lying
    Glasby isn't peer reviewed...LOL. He wrote it himself.
    You're wrong here, and don't seem to understand what "peer review" means. It doesn't mean a long line of authors--it's almost always means anonymously reviewed by other experts in the field. Understanding what it means is a vital skill to being a critical thinking when sorting out science from much of the pseudo science that's on the web.

    Resource Geology is a peer reviewed scientific journal. Specifically, from their own web site:
    "The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the research and its significance to our readership. Except where otherwise stated, manuscripts are peer reviewed by two anonymous reviewers and the Editor. Final acceptance or rejection rests with the Editorial Board, who reserves the right to refuse any material for publication."
    They follow pretty standard process close to that shared by many scientific journals, including the American Meteorological Societies' set of journals who've peer review process I'm most familiar with.

    The credibility of a source is one of the first things anyone should check. The peer review process doesn't rule out gross errors or deliberate misinformation, but it goes far towards achieving that goals. Of course articles in themselves don't constitute proof until their repeated and generally accepted by other experts in those fields--if the article is accepted by it's own community you see it heavily referenced in a couple years. Of course contrary articles crop up as well if others can't repeat the results or find a better explanation--this is how science works. Blogs, media articles, forums etc don't get this filter and should always be viewed with a jaundiced eye, especially if they deliberately cherry pick dated materials or if they pull from seemingly authoritative sources without going into them in any detail--making it more like a shout out than a serious presentation of the topic at hand.
    Anyone who claims that abiotic theory says oil is formed in the crust has no credibility. Needless to say that includes Glasby. And if the Glasby paper was peer reviewed by anyone at Resource Geology, I would like to know their names. In the case of the PNAS paper, we know exactly who peer reviewed it.

    PNAS published the paper at the request of Academy member Howard Reiss, a chemical physicist at the University of California at Los Angeles. As per the PNAS guidelines for members communicating papers, Reiss obtained reviews of the paper from at least two referees from different institutions (not affiliated with the authors) and shepherded the report through revisions.
    The last crazy thing about this discussion I think I'll comment on is the extent some of the abiotic supporters will go--such as Gold's assertion at one point that oil can't be produced from biological materials.

    That's a darn shame really, since chemist have been doing it in labs for nearly 80 years
    Oh really? Name the chemist.

    and are continuing to do so using similar chemistry to produce biodiesels in the near future from algae.
    Biofuel is not petroleum.

    Is anyone doubting that hydrocarbons can be made in the mantle?
    Yes. Biogenic "fossil fuel" theorists who think hydrocarbons were generated only once in the history of the universe by dinosaur fossils in the crust of the earth.

    We already know methane can be. It's just a long ways from simple hydrocarbon to oil
    Not that long. Oil is formed at a depth of 100 kilometers in the mantle.

    there's no proof of it being made in significant quantities
    All oil is abiotic. There is no proof that oil is biogenic.

    --or at least within reach for practical extraction.
    Every commercial oil well drilled past 15,000 feet TVD is practical and within reach.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,274
    Total Science, this is not sciforums. We will not tolerate the the level of snide comments, whining, and intransigent stupidity that is de rigor over there. It is self evident that you are the evangelical oil is mastery. If you wish to remain on this forum you will keep a civil tongue in your head. (Something, by the way, not required of the moderators when dealing with crackpots such as yourself.)

    I reserve the right to shut you down at a moments notice simply because I find your brand of self righteous stupidity annoying. Keep it polite, keep it relevant, avoid being obtuse and you might survive long enough to participate in a useful debate. Otherwise you are a gonner.

    I hope that was sufficiently clear even for you. Not only is no reply necessary any reply will be seriously frowned upon.

    Ophiolite, in moderator mode.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,227
    Total Science, how do the relative abundances of the generated Hydrocarbons from reactions between H<sub>2</sub>O, FeO and CaCO<sub>3</sub> compare to those in actual extracted crude oil?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    In short; Abiotic and Fossil Theory, involve where crude could be expected to find and drill. Fossil indicates organic life must have existed in a particular area and abiotic indicates some natural origin (usually from the mantle) and can be found most anyplace and at any DEPTH. No organic material has ever been found below 18k feet.

    Russia, in the 1970's decided to go with abiotics, drilling deep holes. They found oil and since have developed over 300 fields of deep hole production, the deepest about 42k feet into the crust, and are the worlds number one producer today. Jack II, the American equivalent is 25k feet below the ocean floor (42k feet below sea level) about 200 miles south of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico and there have been many recent finds, where formation from organic material cannot be explained.

    Additionally in Russia in the 70's it was noticed that previously pumped dry wells (to the then current technology) had been somehow replenished. Since then the same has been found in many places including many in the US. Under fossil theory, this would be hard to explain.

    In Russia, then fossil is classified outdated theory. In the US Peek Oil proponents have fought this theory and from about the same 1970 period. Any idea that oil was in continuously being naturally produce, would ruin their arguments. Since then those same folks have taken peek oil to Global Warming, along with a host of activist groups.

    Total Science, I am an occasional poster only. Its not my job to welcome you to this forum...BUT I am doing so. You seem to have asked a simple question and certainly have offered sites to back up your statements. Personally, I am open on this issue, primarily because of coal's origin, which still should be from organic material, at least for now.


    Ophie; This is not an intended dig at you. I had started a post, yesterday and got distracted and is written exactly has would have prior to your post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,227
    They found oil and since have developed over 300 fields of deep hole production, the deepest about 42k feet into the crust, and are the worlds number one producer today. Jack II, the American equivalent is 25k feet below the ocean floor (42k feet below sea level) about 200 miles south of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico and there have been many recent finds, where formation from organic material cannot be explained.
    How far are these sites from fault lines? Couldn't oil pockets be taken deeper below the surface by subduction?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    IMO; This would be highly unlikely on a global basis and only possible on a series of events in one place. Pressures and temperatures increase with depth. Crudes and/or liquids tend to rise, not able to condense and natural gas always accompanies crude. Crude has only accumulated when trapped by rock/salt deposits on the upper levels and when not trapped is probably responsible for sand/shale deposits, which are usually quite massive.

    I didn't go into the quantity of organic matter that would be required, just to produce the crude we have consumed, even if every last atom in this matter turned to oil crude. I don't know of any fossils found in puddles of crude oil...many dating back 40-100 million years, in reasonable quantities.

    A little off topic, but the Russians also found hot mud (water) coming out of some earlier attempts to drill deep in the 50's. The drill bits used melted in those test. The then theory was water was being chemically formed at very deep level and this was highly unexpected. This may or may not contribute to fossil theory, but where the organic material problem would persist. This did lead to some thinking oil could have been or is chemically produced as was the water. Don't know any current studies on this topic...A 'Deepest earth holes', search will get some of this and an off take from a Japanese project currently underway to reach the mantle...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,227
    I don't know of any fossils found in puddles of crude oil...many dating back 40-100 million years, in reasonable quantities.
    AFAIK, oil is thought to have been formed from organic oceanic sediment, which would consist of uneaten dead fish and many, many tons of dead plankton, krill, etc.

    They found oil and since have developed over 300 fields of deep hole production, the deepest about 42k feet into the crust,
    Do you maybe have a citation for that?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    If may be I am not sure either theory (abiotic/fossil) is essentially correct or that I am just tired of fighting peek oil, but frankly there are probably no ideas I haven't heard on either...

    Search *Abiotic Oil In Russia* (exact wording or you will get 'no information'). You will find many articles confirming the theory and comments I have made. Free Energy News, should be one of the first sites and was first up 5 minutes ago when I checked. If fields and wells, mean different things to you, I should have said wells, but you will find these wells are well spread out and discovery was done the old fashion way, hit or miss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Total Science, how do the relative abundances of the generated Hydrocarbons from reactions between H<sub>2</sub>O, FeO and CaCO<sub>3</sub> compare to those in actual extracted crude oil?
    There is no difference therefore the abundances are one and the same, namely at parity.

    "Stable carbon isotopes are not a reliable criterion for distinguishing biogenic from non-biogenic petroleum." -- A.A. Giardini (geologist) and Charles E. Melton (chemist), 1991
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    How far are these sites from fault lines?
    Not very. In accordance with excess mass stress tectonics (E.M.S.T) every oilfield on earth is directly above tectonic activity.

    Couldn't oil pockets be taken deeper below the surface by subduction?
    Absolutely not. Subduction is a myth.

    "People don't want to see it. They believe in subduction like a religion." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981

    "I had taught subduction for more years than any of the present generation of people had been with it. And when they have been in it as long as I have they'll abandon it too." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    How far are these sites from fault lines? Couldn't oil pockets be taken deeper below the surface by subduction?
    Likely they are within a sedmentary sequence that post-dates ~3 Ga, well within the age of bacteria.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •