Can you link the date when life first appeared?
about crude oil
- Thread starter ashpwner
- Start date
I will just point out the obvious for the mathematically challenged then let you guys battle it out:
The debate on the origins of oil is truly ACADEMIC with no practical usage as long as it can not be proven that old fields could replenish themselves in a relative short period of time!! (meaning 50 or less years) Since the grow of demand is way faster than the supposed replenishment rate at 50 years, the whole model still works just like a limited resource model, see American buffalo or whaling as examples....
Now go on...
The debate on the origins of oil is truly ACADEMIC with no practical usage as long as it can not be proven that old fields could replenish themselves in a relative short period of time!! (meaning 50 or less years) Since the grow of demand is way faster than the supposed replenishment rate at 50 years, the whole model still works just like a limited resource model, see American buffalo or whaling as examples....
Now go on...
No - but I can link to the earliest fossils - around 3.5 billion years old
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/305816.stm
Haha awesome. Ok I changed it. What do you think of the rest of the site?
P.S. How many cyanobacteria does it take to make a barrel of oil?
P.S. How many cyanobacteria does it take to make a barrel of oil?
seems a bit disjointed and there isn't a clear progression of data that adds up to a coherent proposition - so you need to clarify and simplify the steps that make it add up to what you feel makes it fit together as a testable theory - in the same way that you can easily sum up for example the basic evidence that fits tectonic theory or evolutionary theory together in a couple of short paragraphs - or even bullet points.
As it stands it has the tone of a creationist website - no offence - it just has that same sort of shouty and convoluted tone - hence my earlier comment that the abiotic oil hypothesis seems more to stem from a political viewpoint than it does from a scientific one.
There aren't any predictions that are made that we could test or that seem to be borne out - for example from what I understand so far, places like hawaii and iceland should be gushing with oil - and I'm pretty sure they aren't.
Hmm. Any more specific suggestions that I could do quickly?
Creationist? LOL. On the contrary it's the fossil fuel cult that (somehow) believes in the miraculous creation of complex hydrocarbon chains in the Earth's crust. Shouty? Can you give an example?
So the links to all the scientific papers from peer reviewed geologists mean nothing to you.
I suggest you reexmine your own political prejudices and biases and then reread the scientific papers from peer reviewed geologists and geochemists.
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Although appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, according to Dr. George F. Becker (Relations Between Local Magnetic Disturbances and the Genesis of Petroleum, 1909) the abiotic hypothesis is entitled to more respect because "very famous men of science" have "adopted this explanation as the more probable." Also see Sourcebook For Petroleum Geology (AAPG Memoir 5, Dott 1969).
On the contrary it's the biogenic hypothesis that is unscientific. No scientist has ever produced petroleum from cyanobacteria or biological detritus and the pressure in the Earth's crust isn't even sufficient to do so.
http://www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm
Sure there is. The deepest fossil discovered is only 2.5 miles deep and in sedementary rock. However petroleum companies are drilling for oil 7 miles deep and in igneous rock.
How would you know? Have you ever drilled there? Statements like that reveal your true unscientific nature - a prejudiced fundamentalist.
If we aren't drilling in Hawaii or Iceland I'll bet you $100 billion it's because of POLITICAL reasons and NOT GEOLOGICAL reasons.
Last edited:
Whoah there boy!
at no point have I said that hydrocarbon CANNOT form in the crust/mantle through abiotic processes - I merely have my suspicions that going from that premise to the point that the majority of oil/geologic hyrocarbons are formed by abiogenic processes is a pretty big leap - particularly given how phenomenally successful oil exploration has been historically using the assumption that it is produced through biogenic processes. Indeed there's some very telling quotes in the first and fairly recent link you've posted:"hydrocarbons that come from simple reactions between water and rock and not just from the decomposition of living organisms," Dr. Russell Hemley of the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory
".......Not because it settles the question whether the origin of natural gas and petroleum is organic or inorganic, but because it gives us tools to attack the question experimentally" Dr. Freeman Dyson
So in summary, the question of abiotic production is neither settled - nor is there ANY suggestion whatsoever that ALL geologic hydrocarbons are abiotic in origin
There's certainly no evidence in the sources you reference that suggest that even if oil is produced abiotically that it is renewing at a sufficient rate for it to be sustainable.
There's no evidence in the sources you reference that suggests that the kind of deep well exploration you mention would be anything close to being economically viable if it wasn't for the fact that oil prices are so high at present - and that price is driven - in part at least - by demand beginning to match the capacity to supply.
Its also pretty clear by way of some simple economics that the kind of deep exploration and extraction you mention, is driven by, and reliant upon, high oil prices, so by its very nature its not something that will do anything significant to bring oil prices down - if anything it will serve to sustain high prices.
So the jury is still well and truly out on your assertion that this somehow mitigates the peak oil hypothesis.
In terms of predictions you can make from the abiotic oil hypothesis, I was thinking in more general terms - such as "abiotic oil hypothesis states that you need xyz rock composition + xyz pressure + xyz conditions of vulcanism. Therefore we can expect to find large deposits of abiotic hydrocarbons at XYZ locations" - then we can see if those predictions are borne out - or we can compare that data to current finds that you suggest are abiotic and see if the data matches the predictions - simply pointing to drilling depth, while a decent first step, doesn't tell the whole story.
If I wasn't clear in my last post that I genuinely don't know if there is oil there or not, let me make that clear now - however while you could argue that the lack of exploration or drilling around Hawaii is political, in Iceland it certainly aint - Icelanders would kill to have an export other than fish.
Last edited:
So why your unwillingness to accept reality? All hydrocarbons are formed abiotically. If I piss water that doesn't mean water is biogenic. How do you explain all the hydrocarbons on Saturn VI (Titan)? Cows farting? Dinosaurs?Whoah there boy!
Succesful oil exploration using the assumption of biogenic processes? LOL. Using the assumption of biogenic process has been an absolute and unmitigated failure. The United States peaked in the 1970s.
If you want to talk about success, you'll have to talk about successful oil exploration in Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, Vietnam, and Yemen, all which have been discovered based upon abiotic principles.
Now try reading this quote: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Your claim that not all hydrocarbons are abiotic is analogous to saying that not all water is abiotic.
Can you read?
Why the Middle East fields may produce oil forever
Reservoirs recharging from below; reserves climbing despite long production history and few new discoveries
Sustainable oil
Raining Hydrocarbons In The Gulf
You mean it's cheaper to stick a toothpick in the sand and get a blowout in Saudi Arabia than it is to drill in 10,000 feet of water and 35,000 feet under the sea floor? Did you figure that out all by yourself?
Emphasis on "in part at least."
Not to mention the fact that the US has over 10,000 miles of undrilled coastline and a Federal Reserve that wants the dollar to go to zero. According to the American Geological Institute, half of the commodity price rise is explained by the weak dollar i.e. political factors and not geological factors. See here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/72651-oil-would-be-65-if-the-dollar-had-stayed-strong-agi
The Peak Oil hypothesis has been demonstrably wrong every year since the 1950s but was also wrong with respect to Kerosine and whale oil.
The prediction of the abiotic hypothesis was that oil can be found below the mythological biogenic "oil window" of 15,000 feet claimed by the fossil fuel cult. Indeed that abiotic prediction has been proven to be true over and over again along with all other abiotic predictions. Furthermore abiotic theory predicted that oil would be discovered in igneous rocks such as granite. That has also been proven true but you'll never know it.
Want to take the other side of my bet? I'll bet you $100 billion there are hydrocarbons offshore in Iceland.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1518556
Nope: no politics there. Move along. LMAO.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
OilisMastery, with his ignorant approach, proseletysing stance, absence of coherent understanding of the issues, and piss poor arguments, is deflecting us from a reasoned and measured study of the possibility that some oil is abiogenic. I have a life to lead. I shall be back next week to rip some more of his nonsense to shreds.
There is a current commercial effort to produce gasoline from green algae, which has been demonstrated in principle. The cyans also produce oil compounds - and in the past, when they covered the earth and filled the oceans and formed complex organized communities, their biochemistry was similarly extended in variety and scale.ice age said:
Why do you quote speeches from 1968, append "Dr" to the full names of people quoted for opinions - opinions often expressed in intemperate and politically familiar language ? ("does not even deserve consideration" is not the kind of language that inspires confidence in its employer's grasp of a scientific issue).
Fossils are found under igneous rock, in pockets between layers of igneous rock, etc. And oil, a common type of fossil remains and one commercially valuable - worth drilling for - is sometimes found under igneous rock and in pockets between layers of igneous rock, etc, which of course is then sometimes worth drilling through.ice age said:
Fossils, metamorphic rock that contained fossils, traces of biotic regimes, etc, have been found as deep as anyone has carefully searched in appropriate places. IIRC even living organisms have been recovered from depths greater than 2.5 miles.
Good luck with that. Ever heard of Fischer-Tropsch?
Um, let me see, because they are true? Why do you believe in a theory from the 1500s? And why do you ignore the scientific papers I've linked to that aren't from 1968?
FYI: PhD means philosophy doctor.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9501E7D71238EE32A25751C2A9629C946896D6CF
I quote scientists not politicians. You are making things up again.
Yeah because everyone knows the Russians don't produce any oil. LOL.
Granted. In the words of the plagiarist Thomas Gold, it's a Deep Hot Biosphere. http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil-Fuels/dp/0387952535
Link please.
Last edited:
The last time I checked there are not only lakes of cyanobacteria on Jupiter but also stampedes of cows and dinosaurs...
Biogenic Fossil Fuel Cultists In Their Native Environment I.E. Nowhere Near An Oilwell
You quote scientists, whom you are careful to provide with their scientific credentials, making what sound like political speeches - using language and so forth not found in responsible scientific journals outside of the editorial or humor sections.ice age said:
A good deal of nonsense came out of Soviet biology in the 1950s, as Darwin was held by the authorities to be an apologist for capitalism and selfish decadence, and his theories rejected on grounds quite similar to the fundie Christian ones - with the police backing them up.
I remembered incorrectly, in a typical American fashion - it's 3 km, not 3 miles, that stuff came from. (The current theoretical limit is about 4 miles, depending on the start level, to match the highest temp reproduction known so far: about 120C).ice age said:
All hydrocarbons are formed abiotically? Seriously? You genuinely believe that? And you wonder why people have difficulty taking you seriously.
And yet - by your own admission - the wells that have been found are not magically replenishing themselves as your theory suggests. Traditional methods of oil exploration have done pretty well in Southern England in finding Europe’s largest onshore oil field – likewise in the North Sea
Got a link for these – in terms of the exploration methodology?
And if you want to talk about abject failure what about the lack of finds at the Siljan ring – purported to be the very best candidate and ultimate proof of abiotic theory – and yet not even a trace of natural gas – let alone any oil.
I did – and to be honest the chemistry is a little beyond the abilities of this humble ethologist, I do wonder though why if this is as influential as you claim, why is it not gaining widespread acceptance?
Not all hydrocarbons are abiotic – nor is all water – You demonstrate absolute certainty of this hypothesis, and yet have demonstrably poor understanding of some very basic science (you asked why your site had the tone of a creationist website - there it is).
Seriously dude – look up Lipid Synthesis and the Krebs Cycle
While other wells run dry or production drops to uneconomic levels – its hardly a fait accomplis, and having oil continuing to migrate into the extraction areas, in a tectonically active region, is hardly a major surprise regardless of its biotic/abiotic origin
Read it – no mention or suggestion of any abiotic origin of the hydrocarbons – merely that they are migrating and mixing with other deposits – nothing earth shattering here at all – neither is the burial of oil bearing strata beyond the oil window that hasn’t yet completed the process of being converted to methane – the earth is a dynamic place with ongoing processes – its not 6000 years old.
So We’re agreed – the exploitation of deep hydrocarbon deposits is a function of high oil prices, not a mitigation of it
Indeed – to suggest that supply is the only factor is an over-simplification – interesting that when it comes to the science you over-simplify like a mofo to make the facts fit your POV– when it comes to the economics, you have to go into detail to make the facts fit your POV.
Selective? You?
This is proof that geological processes are dynamic – nothing more
Oil migrating into igneous rock is not proof of abiotic origin
I’m sure there are hydrocarbons there – there are areas that are geologically very similar to the adjacent oil fields in the north sea – indeed its likely that they are merely the northernmost extension of those fields – but that’s a difference to GUSHING with oil – and do you seriously believe that for political reasons they won’t sell oil to other countries regardless of their internal energy consumption – your naïveté knows no bounds sonny.
Last edited:
couldn't have put it better myself - its an interesting idea with an idiot advocate
I quote acientists. You quote nooone.