Oil Crisis

My answers are blue inserts in your post, imediately following your questions.

You also made a false, completely unsupported, assertion:

"Oil is not associated with algae in any way whatsover. We are drilling for oil deeper than any algae and finding it."

That is not a question, but I will correct your ignorance, anyway:

There are sub-duction regions at least as deep as the mountains (Must be true as Earth is not significantly changing it mass.) Dead un-oxidized algae was transported along with the sediments etc in these sub-duction zones very deep into the Earth. (Sub-duction BTW initially takes places in the same locations that become oceans. I.e. oceans form as these regions sink below the levels of other seas and are flooded with salt water.) The depth these sub-ductions reach is at least as high as the mountains that rise where the tectonic plates collide. I do not remember how tall some mountains are, but am sure many are much higher than man has yet drilled and found oil. - I.e. again your facts are simply wrong. Yes, man can drill deeper that the oil that formed from algae is thermally stable. I said that explicitly that in my prior post. So of course neither algae, nor oil is found at depths where they decomposed into CH4 and H2.

I challenge you to try to answer, rather than avoid, my questions by quoting my question and immediately giving your answer in different color as I have done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BillyT, have you any comprehensible theory as to why we are wasting our time with this turkey?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your lack of basic comprehension is getting simply hilarious - the term before the Cambrian period and Pre-Cambrian are synonymous (that means that they mean the same thing)

I said that life was around for a long time before the Cambrian (i.e it was around during the pre-cambrian) - which you seemed to think it wasn't.
It was further pointed out by ophiolite - along with some useful links - that life was around a for a long time during the pre-cambrian - which means the same thing as what I said - a long time before the cambrian.

Are you really so muthafukin dense that you need something that simple spelled out to you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know he is an ignorate idiot, but I am an old teacher and try always to educated. Old habbits are hard to break. I know in his case it is a wasted effort. His mind is closed (ASSUMING HE HAS ONE), but I am retired and if I spend all day just watching the 43 stocks I currently own, I get nervous. - Better I waste my time trying to do the impossible -educate an idiot. I have always enjoyed teaching and surely some other readers of my posts occasionally learn something.

 

I understand and concur. I find in trying to counter the nonsense the likes of Oil comes out with leads me to a clearer understanding of theory, or an awareness of new facts. That said, I have had enough of his two faced approach to the debate. There are some genuine arguments in favour of at least a partial abiogenic origin for some petroleum. I should have loved to have explored those arguments with someone - of intelligence - who understood them.

OilisMastery would seem to be in his late teens at best - at least his mental age. If I want argument at that level I can stroll the gutters when the pubs close. I've put him on ignore. Good luck with the rest.

 

Oil is not only found in a few locations and if you think that you are retarded.

"Oil is the creature of common Earth forces on common Earth materials." -- Wallace E. Pratt, Oil In The Earth, 1942

"The eternal truth of the statement made by Wallace E. Pratt in 1942 is being substantiated continuously." -- Robert H. Dott, Sourcebook For Petroleum Geology, AAPG Memoir 5, 1969

Men work in 500 degree heat? Interesting.

Exactly.

You don't have the slightest clue do you?

http://www.geotimes.org/june03/NN_gulf.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131151856.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5863/604

I answered both questions directly.

1) See above. Oil is found everywhere biogenic theory predicts that it doesn't exist, i.e. below 15,000 feet TVD.

3) See above. The whole world has been covered in water at one point or another.

I don't see a question mark or a question here.

 

You're the one who lacks reading comprehension. I said petroleum was found in PRECAMBRIAN sediments. Why do you keep bringing up the Cambrian?

 

ok - lets start from the beginning - are you sitting comfortably?

Then I'll begin.....

You said that becuase oil was found in Pre-Cambrian sediments, this proved it was abiotic because it formed before life had appeared on the planet.
Thus wrongly implying that life came about either at the very end of the pre-cambrian or during the cambrian.

I pointed out to you that for a large proportion of the pre-cambrian - or as I put it "for a long time before the cambrian" - there was plenty of life about on this planet.

Now I am truly sorry that you find such difficulty in seeing how "before the Cambrian" and "Pre-Cambrian" mean the same thing, and only relates to the Cambrian period in the sense that it came before it - but in case you still don't get it, trust me - they do - if you don't beleive me ask your mum

 

Yes. Before most life on the planet.

Correctly implying that there was not enough organic detritus in the precambrian to account for all the oil that has been pumped and discovered.

Yes you corrected me on that. I was wrong about that. See how easily I change my mind?

 

Says who? There were enough photosynthesising bacteria and eukaryotes to completely change the entire composition of the atmosphere to a similar oxygen/nitrogen mix as it is today - takes a pretty impressive biomass to acheive that - consider how the human race has only changed the CO2 composition by a few ppm

 

I'm not going to argue with you on that.

But here's the reality. The Biogenic theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

I have considered it and it's not true. Less than 1% of CO2 is man made. Almost all the CO2 comes from volcanoes which makes sense when you consider the fact that hydrocarbons come from the mantle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

About 38% of the CO2 currently residing in the atmosphere is accumulated residue of fossil fuel combustion by humans.

Side point: Oilismastery is indistinguishable in style, interests, grammar, reasoning, rhetoric, vocabulary, opinions and stances, typical reactions, or any other visible attribute, from a former poster on this forum labeled Ice Age Civilizations.

Ice Age's agenda was Creationist evangelising, the promotion of a Biblical Literalist view of the physical world; including the physical reality of Noah's Flood, the invalidity of the standard geological history of the world, the impossibility of Darwinian evolution, etc. Abiotic oil generation, or rather denial of biotic oil generation through burial and eon-long transformation of biological material, was a feature of this approach.

 

Why is there none on land in Brazil? Or any other place that has never been the bottom of an ocean? If oil in significant quanties were a-biotic in origin then places like Brazil that ARE THE DEEP EARTH LIFTED UP should have oil flowing out of every hillside. Explain why Brazil's oil is, like all other commercial deposits, found only in the few places where deep oceans were.

Again I ask:
Why, where deep Earth has come to the surface like Brazil, is there no oil? Why are all of the commercial deposits in location of ancient oceans?

If you do not want to call the small fraction of the Earth that has commercial quantities of oil "few places" that is OK, but by only objecting to my calling them "few place," you are still just avoiding answering these questions.

PS to Ophiolite:

Yes it would be nice to have an intelligent defender of the a-biotic oil POV or at least one who answered direct questions, like those above. I was once on the a-biotic oil side of this discussion. I was at student at Cornell when Thomas Gold was there and heard him speak on the subject a few times. Like him, I expected that the "make or break" test drill in Sweden of the theory would hit oil. That location was chosen in part because it was not an ancient sea bed, so if oil had been found it would have exposed had a serious problem of biotic theory. I.e. why did the organic material not oxidize? That location was also chosen as it had the best chance to hit oil, if oil were of a-biotic origin as it is where a large meteor had hit the Earth. That meteor strike did two things that essentially guaranteed that oil would be found if oil were of a-biotic origin:
(1) The deeper layers of rocks were highly fractured by the shock waves so the oil could easily flow up thru the millions of fracture cracks.
(2) It formed a thick glassified “sealing cap” on top those fracture cracks to keep the oil there for Gold's drill team to find.

Well, they drilled down thru the glassified cover and kept on drilling despite the drill bit tending to get into one of the meteor induced shock formed cracks. (This proved the meteor had hit where they were drilling.) The bent drill shaft snapped off five times, (if I remember correctly), but they stubbornly continued to drill deeper to try to prove the a-biotic origin of oil theory. Each time they lost the drill bit* and had to pull the entire drill string from deeper and deeper depths, it got more expensive, so they finally "threw in the towel" and quit. Most of the prior supporters of the a-biotic origin of oil, including me, admitted they were wrong.

One of the reasons why I was almost certain oil was a-biotic (in addition to being only a student hearing Thomas Gold, a very persuasive speaker, argue for it) is that there is a relative isotope abundance fact that does (or at least at that time did) support the a-biotic origin more than the biologic origin, which back then tended to speak of old dinosaurs - clear there is more oil than the fat in their all their bodies that ever existed. The algae origin and chemical transformation of their dead bodies may have existed back then but was not well known. The fact that dinosaurs would usually die and be eaten by some scavenger made it hard to believe in what now seems true.

Gold hand pick the spot to test his theory, confident it would be confirmed, but instead it was proven wrong. One must accept the facts, especially now that algae, instead of dinosaurs, explain the vast of amounts of oil that exceed the total amount of dinosaur fat that ever existed. The more we learn - the more obvious it is that oil is transformed old algae that accumulated un-oxidized in the deeper parts of the ancient oceans.

I no longer remember Gold's isotope argument or know if it is now explained or just considered to have been wrong data, etc. It would be nice to have an intelligent a-biotic oil defender bring it up again or some evidence that is not easily compatible with the algae origin idea.
-----------
*Drill bits are very expensive. Studded with diamonds, I think. Anyway Howard Hughes made his fortune by selling them. He designed and patented the version still used today with three rotating cutters. I think each costs about $50,000 but I am just guessing. Gold’s financial backers made him finally quit. He may have still believed in a-biotic origin of oil, but stopped publicly talking about it as far as I know after his “make or break” test failed. There was a brief period of joy – when traces of oil were found, but chemical analysis proved those traces came from the drill string lubrications. A-biotic oil is as dead as the dinosaurs, or should be, except for insignificant amounts that probably do exist.

 

There are. The deposits in the Middle East and near China and Indonesia are broadly independent of local geological conditions, although they still only accumulate where there are geological traps.

 

There are no land wells in Brazil? LMFAO. Wow.

Well at least I know how you feel about the Amazon.

Brazil has never been the bottom of an ocean? How do you know that? Based on what I've seen you post here the number of land wells in Brazil is much higher than you can count.

Good luck drilling the Amazon.

No oil in Brazil lmfao. That's a good one. Ever heard of Petrobras?

The fact that you cite Gold, among other things, to argue for abiogenic theory proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Your reference from the USSR makes interesting reading, but must be understood in context of the Soviet era. All science and especially anything relating to biology or biologic processes had to conform to the basis soviet concept of the “perfectibility of the soviet man” and the eventual triumph of communism and its endurance “forever.”

The two ideas of “capitalistic science” that threatened this official doctrine most were the idea that there were limited fossil fuels and that genetics would limit the extent to which mankind could be molded into the “soviet man,” who would abandon greed, and work for the good of the society instead of himself. This was especially harshly enforced, while Stalin lived. – Many scientists were sent to Siberia for suggesting oil was finite, due to its biologic origin and many others for suggesting that genes strongly determine man’s behavior.

Russian almost starved, when Lysenko gained control of soviet agriculture and ignored genetics. Seeds did not matter, but the care of them did. Just as the soviet care of children would make the soviet man a reality, freed from the greed other men, fertilizer etc. would make for bumper crops from any seeds.

Although the writers of your soviet reference wrote when they no longer needed to fear being sent to Siberia for the rest of their miserable lives, it was still during the communistic era. They knew that if they wanted to advance their in their careers, that they had to support the inexhaustible a-biotic oil theory, and be critical of “peak oil” concepts that would make it difficult for both the eventual victory of communism over greed ridden capitalism and might block the endurance of that communistic victory forever.

In short, you reference is from a bunch of prostitutes, given their position, I would probably have done the same. Now that the USSR no longer exists, if they really believed that garbage, they would still be publishing it. Your article has many authors (a typical hallmark of the communistic era articles).*
Why not search all of their names and see if even one is still supporting the a-biotic oil origin theory now that it is no longer a necessity for career advancement? (Some of the older ones may still hold that view, but I doubt if any of the younger ones still do.)

-------
*Hitler once forced a 100 German scientist to sign a paper condemning Einstein’s “Jewish physics.” Few scientists can resist the pressure of such powerful rulers as Hitler of Stalin.

 

I now think there is abiotic oil in addition to the more common biotic oil, it doesn't matter where the carbon comes from, but I don't think this process will falsify the peak oil phenomenon.

 

I'm not sure if anyone has talked about this before but.....

There's a difference between "oil" and "recoverable oil". There's tons of oil out there, and there's probably tons more that we don' even know about deep into the ocean all over the globe. However, there's no use having oil there if we cannot feasibly recover it. And even if we CAN recover it given current technologies, the cost of recovering it may be too high to be beneficial. If the cost is too high, such costs would have to be passed on to the consumer, which would be a futile proposition. That's why the peak oil happens way before we run out of it. It's not oil that is getting scarce -it's cheap recoverable oil. (You must also consider all other costs, not just recovery costs - such as the cost of refining and, ironically, transporting it.)


Changing the subject a little bit, I think that this oil crisis is a blessing in disguise. It will force us to work together and to find new, low-polluting ways to generate energy.

 

Please link to and cite your factual errors.

http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/Global_Warming/2007/09/25/35562.html

 

It's not just a Soviet theory. Your claim that it is is based upon ignorance of petroleum geology and a lack of education. See Von Humboldt, Gay-Lussac, Berthelot, Mendeleev, Sadtler, Becker, Dott, Kenney, etc.