Scientists Find More Abiotic Oil

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by OilIsMastery, Aug 7, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I feel it is connected..
    It just takes a two or three letter word to answer it.. :shrug:
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    That's the most rigorous scientific argument I've seen you make in this debate.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Strawman.

    No sane geologist in the last hundred years has claimed this.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Update your material.. this is getting old.

    Yes or no ?
     
  8. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    I agree. Therefore Kenneth Deffeyes and Colin Campbell are insane.
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Based on what?

    The fact that they're geologists who have discussed peak oil prices?

    It's a non sequitere, my statement does not implie that Geologists discussing peak oil prices are insane (therefore a bait and switch).

    I believe it also doubles as a false flag, and a strawman.

    Congratulations - quite possibly the highest number of logical fallacies I have seen in such a short post ever.
     
  10. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Earth is not the only astronomical body that has hydrocarbons on it. There are plenty of dinosaurs, cows, and algae surfing the asteroids out there to create all the PAHs...lol.
     
  11. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    The theory of the abiotic orgin of oil on earth is only slightly more scientific than saying oil comes from oil fairies.
     
  12. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    WOW!

    The oil goof is still at it and no one here even recognizes this is how he gets paid.

    He works in and his beliefs are wrapped around his absolute devotion to maintaining the BS he is conveying.

    i.e….. this is exactly the mindset of a preacher of faith or a physics goof of particle accelerators.

    They have to maintain the belief no matter if their integrity is being contested.

    So life is down there that deep as well, if the lake is the oldest on the globe, then the process for that oil to cook, may really have taken a long time to reach the state of concentrated hydrocarbons of the oil.

    So maybe that oil is really biologically catalyzed.

    Oil goof, it seems you simply used a lousy example for your argument being they found organisms down that deep within the very oil, found.

    it seems you put el' footo in the el' moutho.... againo!

    so again, if I can fart methane, then we know that all that pressure is not needed for the process to create a hydrocarbon; the 2nd law must be suspect!

    and you answer with

    so if a pile a you (cow manure) can release methane, than your whole argument is moot

    Seems she made it too, without being in the ‘mantel’…..

    how about looking at the implications of what the first 2 laws of thermodynamics suggest;

    The second law is simply ruined by the first.

    As the ‘first’ says energy cannot be lost or created, so equilibrium suggested in the second law means a point of the equation leaves the system without order; which would mean chaos is simply from incorrect math!

    What is so tough with just admitting the 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect?


    basic common sense proves just by observance that if the 2nd law was so pure, nothing could evolve or 'progress' beyond and equilibrium

    Life could not exist if the 2nd law was true!
     
  13. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I know, but what can you say to all those vehicles, that just keep on insisting the way they do, huh?
     
  14. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745

    so let's get this straight; the 2nd law was created by mankind, the auto and heat transfer into motion is created by mankind and that is what you based your opinion on?

    Please stay away frm small children; that reasoning you be following is scary.

    how about, 'WOW, that thing moved and ate that other thing, just before equilibrium set in'

    we ought to derive a law about how that is possible!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    I like Spidergoat's stance.

    Here are some facts. Lots of hydrocarbons in our solar system on other planets. Believed to be present during planetary formation from the gas-cloud. Hydrocarbons seen in distant gas-clouds of distantly forming planetary nebulae around stars. Under the theory of planetary formation for gas-ball giants [which I've ventured in other threads even included Earth, but which lost its outer blanket of H/He due to nearby OB stars in Earth's early history], those should have lots of hydrocarbons.

    So, as Spidergoat has said, the idea of abiotic hydrocarbon is credible.

    The question, then, is our oil all, or part, or none, from such abiotic hydrocarbon.

    Another fact. Oil is found in multiple horizontal layers, called 'pay zones'. Often times seven or more pay zones at 2 miles depth range. These are layers of permeable rock with hydrocarbon (often floating on salt water in the same payzone) in the permeable rock (sandstone-like), capped by impermeable rock [shale-like] which traps the hydrocarbon.

    So, how could the various pay-zones accumulate hydrocarbons from deep below, if the impermeable rock prevents migration? Would it not be more plausible that those hydrocarbons were formed in-situ by organisms [such as single-celled algae] that died and collected in the sandstone pores?

    Of course, oil-producing algae are now being grown for production of bio-diesel.

    That's not to say that some areas might also collect abiotic oil.

    Cheers,
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2008
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Strawman argument.

    Nobody in at least the last thirty years (since they started takin spectra of astronomical objects to find out what they're made of) has claimed that there are no hydrocarbons in space (in fact we were expecting to find them - all that carbon just sort of floating around out there, all those ultraviolet photons zinging around bumping electrons off them, all those protons rushing hither and thither at large portions of the speed of light).
     
  17. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Welcome to 2008. Needless to say fossils have nothing to do with hydrocarbons.
     
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    Correct oil comes from oil fairies that live in the mantel
     
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890

    Strawman argument, and the evidence suggests otherwise.

    "First and foremost is the fact that the mantle is too oxidizing for methane to form there in abundance. Furthermore, most volatiles including methane are transported from the mantle to the Earth’s crust in magma and not by faults as required by the theory." -Geoffrey P Glasby, 2006
     
  20. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Ridiculous. Mr. Glasby has never been to the mantle and the National Academy of Sciences says otherwise: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/39/14023.full

    "I don't think anybody's arguing that gas couldn't be generated from the mantle." -- Barry J. Katz, 2002

    LOL. The theory requires either volcanic pathways or faults, it doesn't merely require faults...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2008
  21. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    This is looking more and more like an episode of "Soap".
     
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    So now as well as putting forward logical fallacies, provable falsehoods, and citing factually incorrect articles to support your arguments, you're now appealing to emotion and ridiculing a source that you yourself, not six hours ago were quite content to quote?

    As far as the NAS paper goes, it says otherwise if and only if the chemical conditions are right (requires the presence of calcite and FeO).
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    This entire thread was kicked off with original claim that there is no sedimentary rock and standard oil formation geology under and around Lake Baikal, which is nonsense. It was then led into a variety of irrelevant tangents by carefully worded questions, as far afield now as natural gas possibly produced in the mantle, and the original nonsense concealed.

    Ice Age Civilizations, as he used to be known when he was spamming this forum with Creationist claims and arguing for Noah's Flood geology, has an ulterior agenda of some kind.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page