Abiotic Oil Why Isn't This Part of the Debate?

Things become strange. Would you say that the volume of oil discovered is greater or less than the volume of limestone in the earth's crust?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I asked: "How do you make deep oil without hydrogen?" Refering to fact that there is zero primordial hydrogen in the core of the earth. Noting that Earth was moltent when first condensed to current volume and that even today when much cooler, the Earth's mass is not sufficient to keep hydrogen (and helium) from rapidly escaping into space. You reply:

Yes. The oceans are full of it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is why (in contrast to the absent hydrogen, which is required to form oil a-biotically deep in the Earth).:

The atomic mass of hydrogen molecule is 2 and that of H2O is 18 or nine times more massive. Because it is nine times more massive, it is to a very large extent permanently bound to the Earth.* (Fact that in the upper atmosphere it forms ice crystals, which are extremely massive by comparison, is also important - If this were not the case, the oceans may have been lost to space by now - I do not know this to be the case. - Just wanted to drive home the important role of atmospheric ice crystals in keeping Earth well supplied with H2O.)**

In additon to man's means of splitting H2O into its constituent elements, various natural biological processes can. (Living organisms, using either directly or indirectly solar energy to capture the relative large binding energy required.)

I will grant that there is water deep in the Earth - mainly water of hydration tightly bound in crystals as well as the hydrogen being bound to the oxygen.

Just how do you, with your a-biotic processes get the strong H-O bond in water broken? (to form oil's H-C bonds)

Once again, (very consitent your are) you expose your ignorance.***

--------------------
*In contrast to Earth, the moon, which is at the same distance from the sun as Earth (to the accuracy that is important here for atmospheric temperature considerations), has too little mass to retain H2O.

**One hopefully improbable, but "ultimate disaster" associated with global warming is that one of the several positive feed back systems may grow to greater than unity gain. For example, the methane hydrates on the ocean floor may be decomposed (Only marginally stable now at depth and some are decompsing as ocean waters warm.) Because CH4 is at least and order of magnitude more effective Green House Gas, GHG, than CO2 the release of even a tiny fraction of the methane stored in these hydrates (in a time scale comprable with, or less than, typical human life span) would achieve that unity gain. (Methane, with atomic weight 16, dose not form ice crystals in the upper atmosphere and thus does slowly escape from Earth if it is not decomposed by UV etc. first.)
If any positive feed back thermal heating system (or combination there of) does achieve sufficiently positive gain to over come the stablizing mechanisms, the that is the end of ALL life on Earth. I.e. Earth will become a slightly cooler vesion of Venus, with a very hot, high pressure, steam atmposphere, for the many thousands of years that it will require for the oceans to boil off into space. (Their heat capacity is enormous, so it will take a long time before they are all gone, but all life will be dead before the are even boiling with possibly a few hot-spring deep-ocean-vent bacteria and worms still "hanging on" until the oceans are entirely gone.) Even if man is making only a small contribution to global warming (which is my opinion) he may be making the "combined systems gain" greater than unity. Certainly several times in Earth's long history then CO2 levels in atmosphere have been higher, but man's production and rapid release of other GHG expecially N2O (several hundred times more effective than CO2 and some others) is without historical precedent - Man may be boosting the "combined systems gain" above unity and terminate all life on Earth in less than 1000 years.

*** actually with your web page, you are slightly dangerous also. By promoting the false concept that oil is effectively unlimited, you encourage its use and add to the CO2, (and N2O from car exhaust, growing corn for fuel etc.) build up in the atmosphere, which in view of footnot ** may be the "ultimate disaster." Fortunately, your POV is so ignorantly supported by you that few will be mislead. (If I were inclinded to be as silly as you, I could argue much more effectively for a-biotic oil theory as Gold did.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hate to break it to you pal but there is plenty of hydrogen on the Earth. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's the nice way of putting it. Tinfoil hat pseudoscientists at best; totalitarian propagandists at worst.

 

Yes locked up chemically - totally usless to making new C-H bonds in the oil. How can you be so dumb?

I specifically asked you to tell the process by which the strong bond of hydrogen to oxygen in water is broken by some a-biotic process to permit the formation of oil a-biotically as you claimed but you do not reply to direct question. - You only post more of your unsupported nonsense. That is DUMB, DUMBEST of The DUMB!

 

The evidence for biogenic oil is persuasive, but not wholly convincing. There remain a handful of doubts that would lead one to favour an abiogenic origin.
Individuals (such as Buffalo Roam and OilisMastery) who adopt a sneering, contemptuous condemnation of the supporters of biogenic oil, implying an oil industry promoted conspiracy, merely reveal themselves as biased individuals following an agenda. This is not an approach likley to lead to a final determination of the truth of the matter.

 

That is correct. In fact in one post I even noted that I could do a much beter job of supporting the a-biotic orging theory, if I wanted to be "silly"

I agree, not everything know about oil is well understood, but there are glaring difficulties with the a-biotic theory. Not the least of which is where in the deep Earth is there free hydrogen in quantity to have made the oil. I.e. the hydrogen that is there is "doublely locked up" - It is locked in crystals as water of hydration and locked to oxygen by the H-O bondds in any free water, one of the strongest that exist, if Fluorine compounds are excluded.

I have repeately asked OilisMastery how that H-O bond is broken (by some a-biotic process) and yet the much weaker C-H bond of oil forms (instead of just the reoxidation of the free hydrogen.) He is either too dumb to respond or not capable of rational discussion. - He only makes repeated unsupported nonsense claims, which are totally unrelated to the questions.

I have also noted that the dominace of hydrogen in the Universe is totally irrelivant as the Earth was moltent when if took its current shape/ volume and could not retain any of that universal hydrogen - even today at Earth's location from the sun in its much colder condition, Earth's gravity is much too weak to hold hydrogen to the Earth (without it being bound chemically in some heavier compound like water and that of course again raises the question of how to break the chemical bond.)

 

Really?

Have you read some of the responses that were made to my post? to describe them as (sneering, contemptuous condemnation) is mild, and as time goes on it seems that large new oil fields are being found, and that in places that it shouldn't be found.

There is a biotic oil and it comes from coal, and at one time it was a primary source of lighting and heating fuels, and appears to be on a come back.

It is sometimes confused with kerosene or lamp oil, but coal oil is obtained from the destructive distillation of cannel coal, mineral wax, and bituminous shale, all biogenic.

From what I have read petroleum as it flows in to its pool formation, picks up biogenic markers, but the base material is not biogenic, kind of like making coffee, as water runs through the grounds, it picks up the caffeine, magnesium and manganese, the color and flavor, so in the end water is still water, it can be separated from the Coffee, and the same could be done to oil, if you wanted to, you could remove all the biogenic markers, and still have oil.

This though comes from a sales demonstration by a salesman who wanted to sell me a water purification system, he did just that with my leftover morning coffee, he filtered it and turned it back into clear flavorless water.

Now as a clarification, I do believe that there is biogenic sources for oil, but I also believe that there is abiotic sources as well, and this comes from the differences between coal oil make up and petroleum oil make up, and the different geology that they are found in, and the present depth that new oil finds are being made at.

 

ok, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR WHERE THE HYDROGEN required to form oil comes from? (some abiotic process)?

Specifically: Are you in agreement with OilisMaster that it was captured and retained by the Earth when it formed from the very dominate (98%?) of the universe's inter galactic gas OR do you admit this is nonsense (for reasons I have now posted several times in reply to him)?

I will not argue with your "belief" only with any "facts" you may suggest as answer to this direct question.

See last three paragraphs of my post 247 if you do not immediately understand why this question is a very serious challenge to the abiotic oil theory.

 

Actually it is 1 amu!

I've corrected Billy T on something; I will relish this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He said Hydrogen molecule- monatomic hydrogen doesn't exist, except possibly in plasmas.

Good job Billy T. *applauds*

 

H2? Eh. Damn.

 

Don't give up. I make plenty of mistakes (usually because my memory fails me - I almost never search or check)
If you catch one, I will thank you - I always do.

I am cautious, use careful wording etc, so it will not be easy to catch me. For example, I seem to recall the binding energy of H in the water molecule is a little more than 5 ev, but contented myself with just saying it was one of the strongest, fluorine compounds excluded. Certainly, any where that the strong H-O bond can be thermally broken it is impossible for the weaker C-H bond in oil to hold together or even form. To make this point, I did not need to risk error by stating that it takes 5+ev to break the H-O bond, but think that is the case (so my memory is telling me.)

BTW guthrie, you are essectially correct atomic hydrogen is only found in plasmas, I think. I considered how I could make some with no plasma and the only idea I came up with was in high vaccuum, a proton beam striking a thin metal foil target would very likely have a slightly dispersing stream of atomic hydrogen coming out the other side, if it was not too intense a proton beam. I do not know, but this is probably how they make "Ion Rocket's" exit beam electrically neutral as it must be for the thrust to continue (If rocket charges up by ejecting a charged beam, the beam will soon just go away for a while and then fall back in the electric field with zero net thrust.)

There is atomic hydrogen in deep space, but that is a plasma, despite being very cold. Few know why and I will not explain now, but if you want to know look at the density terms in the Saha equation.

 

Dear Billy Bob, maybe you should read a scientific paper about the hydrogen in the Earth's mantle some time. Maybe you'll learn something but I doubt it.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993LPI....24..839K

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/5050/1391

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v362/n6422/abs/362704a0.html

 

You have been treated with quite reasonable respect on this thread as far as I can see, considering your standard of post. Where on this thread has a level of sneering and namecalling greater than that you have directed, and commonly direct, at others been directed at you?

You insist on saying things that make little sense, such as claiming that finding oil at great depth is evidence of abiotic origin, and that there has not been enough biotic material available to account for the oil found, and so forth. Nevertheless the replies to your posts have been actual replies, directed at the issues you raise. Have you considered them?

Your links are to discussions of bound hydrogen, in water or tightly fixed OH groups. That appears to overlook the issue, or miss the point.

You have also posted apparent assertions that the amount of oil found is greater than biotic origin could account for, that biological residue is not found below 7500 feet, etc. These have been countered by pointing to limestone (to which we could add oil shale, etc) found in large quantities and great depths elsewhere, and the long times and great expanses available. Reply?

 

It is so true that google has no wisdom button.

Hey oilisnotselfmastery, do you know under what conditions pyroxense and olivines release the Hydrogen in them?

 

The deepest fossil ever discovered was 7,382 feet below the sea floor. There is no limestone past that depth that contains biological detritus.

 

Buffalo apparently (based on derisive statements in other threads) does not believe in the theory of evolution. The theory that is the cornerstone of modern biology and medicine. A theory that is supported by an ocean of evidence, and accepted by 99% of qualified scientists.

But if a few outliers believe that oil may not be a finite resource, he immediately finds that plausible.

 

Most limestone is biological detritus. Are you claiming that limestone does not exist below 7500 feet ?

http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC827910

 

Google has apparently found this paper for oilisntselfmastery and posted it in the thread in the earth science section:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...5470440708_510&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0#B6

Now, there are a few things that are odd about it, but I throw it up here because for some reason he (she?) hasn't posted it themselves here.

Also it provides no obvious answer the the problem of the hydrocarbons decomposing at certain tmperatures and pressures.