Oil Doesn't Come From Dead Dinosaurs

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by OilIsMastery, Aug 1, 2008.

  1. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So Hitler was merely Gods tool ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Billion not million, and how would you like it if someone called your dead bloated carcase garbage?
    Have a heart will ya.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    my bad. How very insensitive of me. was I ok with giant or should I have said "height challenged"???
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    In a way.

    If you look in the book of Revelations, under the Sixth Seal, two hundred million demons were turned loose upon the Jews.
    Men, women, and children... all innocent people.
    Just because they were Jews, they were killed.
    But God said He give each one of them a white robe, He had blinded them to Christ's first coming, so that we could see...

    Those demons are still here...preparing for the next phase.
    Killing 6 million people was a holocaust, but that pales to what they do next.

    REVELATION 9:14
    Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.

    REVELATION 9:15
    And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.

    REVELATION 9:16
    And the number of the army of the horsemen [were] two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.

    A third of mankind.....that's two billion dead.
    If I'm reading this right.
    I could be wrong....
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2008
  8. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    The article you quote is fundamentally flawed.

    The Cenozoic was from 65mya to today (not 24,000 years ago)
    The "Upper Oligocene to Lower Miocene" covers a time period from 28.4 MYA to 15.97 MYA - still not 24,000 years ago.

    The article is scientifically inaccurate.

    http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.htm
    http://www.bgs.ac.uk/Education/britstrat/home.html
    http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/index.htm
    https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/CGIModel/GeologicTime

    I can of course provide more detailed information as required, but the basic point is that 15.97 - 28.4 MYA is not the same as 24,000 years ago.
     
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    We had a thread going about abiotic oil a few months ago. I get the impression that the biggest argument for taking it seriously is that we haven't quite figured out exactly how organic material becomes petroleum. Is this true?

    I realize this has a disturbing parallel to the creationist argument: Since we haven't quite figured out how abiogenesis works yet, we can't completely rule out the possibility of divine creation. But divine creation violates the basic premise of science, that the natural universe is a closed system. The abiotic oil hypothesis does not have any supernatural pretensions. The latter is merely an extraordinary assertion that requires extraordinary evidence in compliance with the Rule of Laplace, and which even so does not demand that we treat it with disrespect while pending discovery of evidence. The former is antiscientific and mandates derision as well as the exile of all its believers to Antarctica, or at least West Virginia.
    Is it true that we can't document the process by which organic detritus becomes petroleum? That is a major flaw in any theory. To continue my above example, we can document the process of evolution, but not abiogenesis.
    * * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATORS COMMUNITY * * * *

    This is a place of science and the scientific method is to be observed at all times, or at least not flouted except in jest. Please desist immediately from your campaign of religious trolling, which is a violation of the rules. At first I assumed you were joking to post this putrid crap on one of our science boards, but now it appears that you were serious. Get it out of here or go home. You can post all you want on our Religion subforum, that's your little ghetto where the rules of science are suspended.
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, this isn't true. It's a simple matter of pyrolysis. You heat bigger, more complicated hydrocarbons, apply a bit of pressure, and they start falling apart, the same process operates on wood to make burnable gases, and plastics to liberate Hydrogen Chloride from PVC in office fires (apparently quite the problem).

    Here is OilIsMastery's very own blog where he discusses the process OIM Blog and then goes on to say that the problem is that they're drilling below the depth where Oil should exist, and that's what the problem is (as the temperature increases, the size of the fragments decreases, until you end up with Methane).

    Here's an article written by Robert Braun and Alan Burnam, published in 1993 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the US Department of Energy that discusses a Global model for the Biogenesis of Oil using 13 chemical species in 10 seperate reactions.

    http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10169154-cT5xip/10169154.PDF

    The problem is one of specificity. The general reactions are known. It's simply pyrolysis, Cracking, it's been known about for quite some time, and happens every time you light a fire. The problem is that tracking down specific chemical pathways, exact reactions and intermediates can be notoriously difficult. Part of that is sometimes it's the compound that's present in parts per billion that's catalyzing the reaction in some unexpected way.

    The accepted pathway is that Biological matter is cracked into Kerogen, Kerogen breaks down into various things depending upon its specific composition. Labile kerogen gives heavy hydrocarbons, refractory kerogen gives gas, and inert kerogen gives graphite.

    Additionally there are 4 types of Kerogen (I-IV) which are classified according to their chemical and physical properties.

    Further evidence in favour of biogenesis (albeit seemingly circumstantial at first) is the fact that Kerogen deposists occur both with coal, and with oil.

    Here's an article that discusses kerogen rich shale deposits, and how to define an oil shale http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/magazine_detail.asp?ART_ID=2658 and here's an article that discusses a kerogen rich coal deposit in Australia: http://www.eama.com.au/projects/mulga/

    Here's an article Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview by Geoffrey P. Glasby that was accepted for publication in RESOURCE GEOLOGY, vol. 56, no. 1, 85–98, http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

    It raises some interesting points with regards to problems with the Abiogenetic theories.

    There's no shortage of evidence supporting the biogenesis of oil.

    Here's an article (actually, I think it's one of the first) that discusses Abiogenesis of Oil, in the first three paragraphs of the introduction it dismisses pyrolysis as being against the laws of thermodynamics, and uses several appeals to emotion.

    My bad: It was published 2001.

    I can probably go further if needed?
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2008
  12. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    From your link and I quote:

    "Examples of the occurance of abiogenically-derived hydrocarbons have been recorded." -- Geoffrey P. Glasby

    "It is possible to convert methane into a complex mixture of higher alkanes and alkenes at high pressures and temperatures but not carbohydrates, the fundamental building blocks of plants." -- Geoffrey P. Glasby

    Glasby also writes and I quote "Formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as the result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds." Thus proving that biogenic theory is invalid.

    "The general concept of petroleum formation by biogenic mechanisms has been firmly entrenched for a long time, but there has been no accumulation of convincing experimental evidence in support of this belief." -- Charles E. Melton and A.A. Giardini, 1983

    Link

    The first was written in 1804 by the great German scientist Alexander Von Humboldt.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2008
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Strawman argument - show me where I disputed the possible existence of Abiogenetic oil.

    Makes no attempt to account for Pyrolysis, article does not discuss pyrolysis, see the LLNL paper for details.

    Or that he has not studied the Biogenic pathways in any detail, or that he was unaware of the LLNL paper.

    I see this quote pop up from time to time, and the closest thing to substantiating it I have ever seen is the (alleged) lack of biological porphyrins in oil, which fails to account for the fact that there may be pathways capable of defeating those.

    I'm aware of that, and I did correct myself.
     
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    OIlIsMastery:

    Do you have any comment on the accuracy of the article you link to in this thread, and the inconsistencies contained within it?
     
  15. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Congratulations.

    You're the one who linked to Glasby not me. You just discredited your own source and biogenic theory.

    The hydrocarbons in so-called "kerogen" are abiotic in origin: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2008
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Falsehood/straw man.

    I have not discredited my argument, or my source.
    Nor was Glasby the only pro-abiogenesis source that I included in my post (maybe I was aiming for something called balance in my post).
    Nor have I discredited biogenesis.

    I suggest you go back and re-read what I actually talked about in my post (here's a clue, it wasn't biogenesis v's abiogenesis).

    In fact, by the standards you're now claiming, you discredited Abiogenesis and your own argument by linking to an article that made erroneous factual claims.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Quoting from the abstract, OilIsMaster gives a lesson on how to “cherry pick” and distort:
    Oil adds a FALSE AND MISLEADING sentence he wrote to replace Glasby’s two final sentences. It is Thomas Gold’s ABIOTIC theory, not the biogenic origin theory, that is “invald” / NOT POSSIBLE on “thermodynamic grounds”

    Here, with part smaller, is the ENTIRE abstract (not a cherry picked sentence followed by Oil's false addition

    "Abstract: The two theories of abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and Thomas Gold's deep gas theory, have been considered in some detail. Whilst the Russian-Ukrainian theory was portrayed as being scientifically rigorous in contrast to the biogenic theory which was thought to be littered with invalid assumptions, this applies only to the formation of the higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle. In most other aspects, in particular the influence of the oxidation state of the mantle on the abundance of methane, this rigour is lacking especially when judged against modern criteria as opposed to the level of understanding in the 1950s to 1980s when this theory was at its peak. Thomas Gold's theory involves degassing of methane from the mantle and the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. However, formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as a result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds. This {T.Gold's} theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature."

    From Glasby’s Summary (p89):

    “The Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins was an attempt to formulate a scientifically rigorous theory of hydrocarbon formation which could play a major role in the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbon deposits in the Soviet Union in the immediate post-war period. The theory is rigorous in its interpretation of the thermodynamic data for the conversion of methane to higher hydrocarbons at high temperatures and pressures. However, the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane is only one step in the complex chain leading to the formation of commercial petroleum deposits and there are several major objections to this {abiotic} theory. 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. The occurrence of major oil and gas fields in crystalline basement rocks WAS also taken as confirmation of the abiogenic theory. However, this assumption predates modern theories of fluid migration in the Earth's crust. …at the time that the abiogenic theory was at its peak from the 1950s to the 1980s, it was not possible to assess the relative merits of these two theories objectively on the basis of the then existing scientific data and this only became possible with the development of much more sophisticated techniques for the analysis of the organic constituents in petroleum such as GC/MS in the 1980s. As a result, a much more detailed understanding of the pathways of organic constituents from source rocks to petroleum was established which offered convincing evidence to support the biogenic theory. By contrast, the abiogenic theory made no real attempt to explain the formation of the very complex mixture of organic compounds which make up oil. A major claim of the Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiogenic hydrocarbon formation is that it had major successes in the discovery of oil and gas deposits in crystalline basement rocks. However, it now appears that the great oil fields of the Volga-Urals region, the northern Urals and western Siberia were discovered not as a result of application of this theory as its proponents claim but by
    the use of conventional exploration methods” {OilIsMastery is not the only abiotic supporter to ignore the facts.} … These failures of the Russian-Ukrainian theory in areas where it has claimed its greatest successes essentially bring its role as a viable theory on which to base exploration programmes for commercial hydrocarbon deposits to an end. As a matter of fact, this theory is now largely forgotten even in the Former Soviet Union…”

    Billy T’s SUMMARY:

    (1) All agree Thomas Gold’s version of the abiotic origin is false.

    (2) Almost all modern Russians agree ALL ABIOTIC ORIGIN THEORIES ARE FALSE but all also agree that there may be slight (<< 1%) abiotic oil and that some of the organic molecules that are precursors of life and of oil have been found in trace amount in cosmic dust and meteors.

    (3) OilIsMaster is more willing to misrepresent, distort, and cherry pick than to honestly accept well established facts.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2008
  18. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Therefore biogenic theory is invalid.
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No not only are your distoring - you have fabricated a quote -I never posted that quote* attributed to me. Please tell where I did.

    --------------
    *Later by edit: "that quote" is of course refering to OilIsMastery's post 55 that presented my quote of Glasby as if it were my statement.

    I will not stand for Oil putting words in my mouth and refusing to correct, when requested to do so. Ban him.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2008
  20. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    NOT TRUE. I am quoting Glasby. Infact, unlike you I do not distort what Glasby is stating but quote the entire abstract. If you do not appoligize, I will report you - and hope to see you banded. (Your post 55 states I said what Glasby said.)
     
  22. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    LOL. You posted the Glasby quote.

    "Formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as the result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds." -- Geoffrey P. Glasby, 2006

    Therefore biogenic theory is invalid.

    Read it and weep...:bawl:
     
  23. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    Sorry oil man;

    your integrity is weak!

    the whole argument you post has nothing to do with science but in a theory

    as to suggest what you have would mean that at just about every fissure and around just about every volcano, we should be finding oil.

    As well it would also mean that all that oil we have already pumped up from within the crust is magically seaping up, again against thermodynamics as it should not be pooling but disipating.

    if carbon was creating oil in the mantel then why are we not find diamonds in the oil?

    Why is carbon in coal also not diamond baring?

    In fact how did the coal lay in beds, when not liquid?

    How did it seap up from the mantel?

    Maybe you should find another job dude.
     

Share This Page