Discussion: The origins of oil is irrelevant

well the dude did wear a dress:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Forgive pjdude, he educated himself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you sure pjdude? I mean are you REALLY sure? Before you answer, I suggest you google both Mendeleyev and Gregory Mendel.

 

Oil Is Renewing

Not to be contrary, but oil is being produced from molten magma in Fumeroles deep in the Ocean Floor. Deep diving bathyspheres found petroleum products bubbling up out of fissures 12000 to 24000 feet deep. Tremendous heat and pressure is actually cracking the molten minerals into liquid crude oil. Then the newly formed oil under pressure seeps through cracks and fissures in the crust up into voids we call oil fields. Texas fields that were pumped empty back in the 70's and capped have been reopened and found to contain new oil. So the earth is renewing itself as we speak.

 

You mean like your zits. As long as you pop them faster than your body renews them, the zits are losing...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They are likely being generated in situ through a Fischer-Tropp reaction.

No it doesn't.

A handful of fields have been recharged from (identified) deeper reservoirs along fault planes. No magic. No abiogenic petroleum.

 

Your first post, I see. Welcome back OilisMastery. Times are tough - down right depressing. We can use a few laughs.

 

I'm not sure what to think about this topic. I'm inclined to agree with both OilIsMastery, and skycaptain. From what I've seen and read, I really do believe there has been either a colossal error in American geological thinking, or one hell of a conspiracy hoisted upon the Anglo-American public.

Go here, read the Academic papers, listen to the NPR interview with J. F. Kenney. Maybe it's just because I have a very open mind. But I think any rational person can listen to the NPR interview and view these scientific papers and come to the conclusion it's quite possible that our (the American) oil industry is anything but a joke compared to the Russian Oil industry. Do they have more territory? Sure, but I think they just know more and have a better understanding of hydrocarbon geology too. They produce more and are looking in areas that our science concluded decades ago wouldn't, and couldn't possibly produce oil.

http://www.gasresources.net/

NPR Interview

:shrug:

On the other hand, I agree with Syzygys, it doesn't really matter, if it is abiotic. If the Russian method for finding oil, and the manner in which it is said to be formed turns out to be proved correct, it only is a matter if additional oil capacity being brought on-line quickly enough, and that's an additional progression scenario.

Population growth, Energy Use? Its a geometrical progression. It's a matter of compounding, and our ability to exploit a resource with diminishing returns, as the planets population grows as does it's geometrically increasing need for energy use. I still see a problem either way. I think a green economy, energy efficiency and. . . . other solutions are in our future.

 

Incidentally, for users of Sciforums, you all should get a chuckle out of this essay. From the abiotic oil site, an essay on "Junk Science" Apparently that's what the biotic oil theory is? lol

Science & Junk-science:

 

There is a big difference between "petroleum products" and crude oil. And "cracking the molten minerals" is not a reasonable description of how "petroleum products" would be formed from magma.

The first and most enduring chuckle I got out of that essay was its self-display of most of the features of junk science promulgation - beginning with a quote from a famous name "authority" (an astronomer with little relevant expertise) and littering the prose with other famous names more or less irrelevant (including the tangential political swipes calculated to appeal to its audience - Marxist economics is "junk science"?), featuring derision and heated language, presenting long-outdated research and dressing its simple argument in the jargon of these superseded reports, and so forth.

There used to be a frequently cited essay providing a scoring system for these kinds of claims - so many points for any mention of "Feynman" or "Einstein", so many points for referring to the established body of experts in the field as having overlooked or misunderstood major findings of long ago, etc. That essay would score fairly high - not at the top, as it does not claim a conspiracy of the academically powerful to oppress the author and deny him his rightful glory, does not present claims of its own that contradict well-established laws of physics, or the like, - but kind of up there.

btw: There's a side influence on Russian abiotic oil theory - in earlier times, and not that long ago, it was necessary for Russian scientists to avoid aligning their theories with Darwinian evolutionary theory. Biotic origin of vast oil deposits was a bit too suggestive of Darwin, in its description of earlier eras, and abiotic explanations more congenial to old Soviet political thought.

 

I don't see how this statement makes any sense. If you're talking about minerals in general like metals and salts and stuff, converting minerals into oil would involve nuclear reactions causing elements to transmute, which as I'm sure you know only occurs under very exceptional circumstances.

 

Ah, I believe you're referring to the Crackpot Index.

 

Where does Bill Clinton fall on the crackpot index?

 

Not very high up - few Rhodes Scholars do.

 

There was strong political pressure to denounce biotic oil and support the A-biotic origin, but not for the reason you suggest. If anything Russian scientists were strongly encouraged to support Darwinian Theory as Russia/ USSR or CCCP/ was officially atheistic and anything that made "God the Creator” look silly was encouraged. Darwin helped justify the closing of Orthodox Catholic churches teaching falsehoods or if allow to remain open, staffing them with KGB "priests" to hear confessionals.

The correct reason is the communistic ideology stated that environment dominates nature. Plants, if give the correct communal farm environment, fertilizer, water, etc. need not have good seeds to grow from. - An idea that nearly starved Russia.

When applied to man, this idea was that man could be shaped by proper education to not be self-interested and greedy, but willing and glad to work for the good of all (Read the Russian state) as embodied in Lenin's edit: “From each according to his abilites and to each according to his needs."

Well they were realistic enough to know greed and self-interest would not disapear even in one generation while they were making the "New Soviet Man." And it would not be the inevitable path of history to the great and glosious Soviet future if peak oil were true.

Peak oil was a capitalist invention to drive up the price of oil and false. If you were a scientist and did not want you lab to be a cell in Siberia, you had better agree.

 

Billy, get real.

1. The theory has been known for decades, when oil price was cheap and stagnant.

2. Oilprices fell 70% from the high, how come? theory or no theory.

Everything nonreplenishable will run out sooner or later. There is peak coal, peak uranium, gold, whatever you name...

 

I did not say otherwise. I said that The CCCP's dogma was that peak oil was false - a capitalist story to help hold up prices. I don't need to "get real" You both need to read more carefully. If you still think the Atheistic CCCP was anti-Darwin, pro "God the Creator", you need to "get real."

Syzygys - You are quoting me out of context - Yes that is in my post but NOT as my POV that was the CCCP's POV as my whole post makes clear. BTW, I have had lunch with Hubble - he gave a talk at APL many years ago and I was one of the eight or ten asked to the pre-colluvium lunch with him as at that time not many at APL were interested and knowledgeable about the coming energy problem - I even had patents in the area. I don't recall exactly when that was, but the oil price was about $10/ barrel and no one was much interested in my patents. (I only own one of them - interest was so low that the Navy did not want to pay to patent it.)

 

OK, my bad. I was a little bit surprized that you would say something like that, but I was also watching TV. Anyhow, I still made a point against that argument.

This thread has reached its end really...

 

I agree with the statement in this topic which is that oil's origin is irrelevent because we need to find a renewable energy source. Personally I prefer sunlight because it is the most powerful and renewable.