about crude oil

[OilIsMastery]

All hydrocarbons are formed abiotically? Seriously? You genuinely believe that? And you wonder why people have difficulty taking you seriously.

Yes. All hydrocarbons are abiotic just as all water and all diamonds are abiotic.

And yet - by your own admission - the wells that have been found are not magically replenishing themselves as your theory suggests.

I don't beleive in magic. Magic is the belief of biogenic theorists.

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

The UK and North Sea peaked. LOL.

Not all hydrocarbons are abiotic – nor is all water

Water is a condition for life. Therefore abiotic water preceded life and cannot be biogenic. Likewise hydrocarbons.

Oil migrating into igneous rock is not proof of abiotic origin

Oil migrates up not down. That's why we used to see blowouts.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Yes. All hydrocarbons are abiotic

Really? Rapeseed oil is abiotic? Squalene is abiotic?
Do you actually know what abiotic actually means?

The UK and North Sea peaked. LOL.

Which leads to what conclusion?

Water is a condition for life. Therefore abiotic water preceded life and cannot be biogenic. Likewise hydrocarbons.

I was right - you don't even know what biogenic means.

Credit where it's due sonny - you have some stones - to suggest I take you seriously when you don't even know the definition of the words biotic and abiotic - let alone any of the science that underpins it - is pretty brave

Oil migrates up not down. That's why we used to see blowouts.

explain why igneous rock cannot overlie sedimentary rock and you have a point

 

[OilIsMastery]

Really? Rapeseed oil is abiotic? Squalene is abiotic?
Do you actually know what abiotic actually means?

.
Yes. Do you know what a hydrocarbon is?

explain why igneous rock cannot overlie sedimentary rock and you have a point

It's possible. However the prediction of biogenic theory is that there is an oil window of sedimentary rock down to 15,000 feet TVD. Past that depth, they claim, hydrocarbon bonds break apart into methane. The Biogenic theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

.
Yes. Do you know what a hydrocarbon is?

I know very well what a hydrocarbon is - there's a clue in the word - however I suspect there's some confusion on your part - suppose you tell me.

.
It's possible. However the prediction of biogenic theory is that there is an oil window of sedimentary rock down to 15,000 feet TVD. Past that depth, they claim, hydrocarbon bonds break apart into methane.

Indeed - it says there is a window for FORMATION of oil

 

[Ophiolite]

Oil migrates up not down. That's why we used to see blowouts.

This is going to be good. This is going to be better than good.

Could you explain to us all what you understand to be the nature and cause of a blowout. Once you have done that - finding whichever meagre resources you can google - would you explain what possible relevance it has to oil migration.

Wow. I'm really looking forward to this. I can hardly wait.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Indeed - it says there is a window for FORMATION of oil

Exactly. Yet another false prediction of the fossil fuel cult. The pressure at 15,000 TVD in the Earth's crust isn't sufficient to create complex hydrocarbons.

http://www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm

Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration.”

Professor Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, at All-Union Conference on Petroleum and Petroleum Geology, Moscow, 1968.

 

[OilIsMastery]

This is going to be good. This is going to be better than good.

Could you explain to us all what you understand to be the nature and cause of a blowout. Once you have done that - finding whichever meagre resources you can google - would you explain what possible relevance it has to oil migration.

Wow. I'm really looking forward to this. I can hardly wait.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me - how many fossils does it take to make a barrel of crude oil?

How much cyanobacteria is neccessary to yield a barrel of oil?

When you answer these two questions then I'll return the courtesy.

 

[Ophiolite]

You never asked me those two questions. I am involved in the technology to drill wells to find oil. My knowledge of oil formation is not encyclopedic - though it is clearly barrels ahead of yours. What makes you think those questions are relevant?

By the way, I take your prevarication to mean that you don't understand the mechanism of blow outs. Let me help you . Try googling 'well kick'. That might contain something of more relevance for you. After you have studied what you find come back and tell us how this relates to oil migration.

 

[OilIsMastery]

You never asked me those two questions.

I've been asking those questions since I first posted here and I know for a fact you've read them. More recently I asked the question in post #64. See here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1876895&postcount=64

So answer them now that I've asked you directly.

I am involved in the technology to drill wells to find oil. My knowledge of oil formation is not encyclopedic - though it is clearly barrels ahead of yours.

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005...showComment=1148307660000#c114830771148725455

What makes you think those questions are relevant?

If you have to ask that question it's obvious you can't answer them.

 

[Ophiolite]

So answer them now that I've asked you directly.

Those questions are not germane to anything I have been discussing here. I have no intention, desire or time to carry out the library research necessary to provide you with an answer. If you can show that the answers would possess some relevance to our discusison I might change my stance, but I think it unlikely. It might be worth your while giving it a try - why do you think those figures are relevant? Do you really think you can demonstrate the total biomass required to produce the amount of observed oil it too great? Think again.

In contrast, my questions to you directly address your competence to even be taking part in this discussion. I don't think you quite understand what a blow out is, or how it occurs, or how it has about the same relevance to oil migration as ... well nothing really, apart from pressure.

Since I am a nice guy, I shall give you a partial answer to your question. How many fossils does it take to make a barrel of oil? None. Oil does not come from fossils. It comes from dead organisms.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Those questions are not germane to anything I have been discussing here. I have no intention, desire or time to carry out the library research necessary to provide you with an answer. If you can show that the answers would possess some relevance to our discusison I might change my stance, but I think it unlikely. It might be worth your while giving it a try - why do you think those figures are relevant? Do you really think you can demonstrate the total biomass required to produce the amount of observed oil it too great? Think again.

In contrast, my questions to you directly address your competence to even be taking part in this discussion. I don't think you quite understand what a blow out is, or how it occurs, or how it has about the same relevance to oil migration as ... well nothing really, apart from pressure.

LOL @ U

Since I am a nice guy, I shall give you a partial answer to your question. How many fossils does it take to make a barrel of oil? None. Oil does not come from fossils.

LMAO. So you finally concede fossil fuels are a myth. Congratulations I think there might be some hope for you after all.

It comes from dead organisms.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum

Here's another question you won't be able to answer: the crude oil that comes out of the ground is not made up of a single hydrocarbon, but rather is a mix of different hydrocarbons that have to be separated. Which organisms create which hydrocarbon chains?

 

[Ophiolite]

LMAO. So you finally concede fossil fuels are a myth. Congratulations I think there might be some hope for you after all.

I was just about to put you on ignore, then thought I'd take one final look.

Listen you cretinous, dumb-fuck, aborted remnants of a retarded, brain dead amoeba. As has previously been explained to you fossil fuels does not mean the fuels come from fossils. The fuel itself is the fossil. It is a remanant of once living organisms. The fuel is the fossil. Understand?

Cretin.

Goodbye.

 

[OilIsMastery]

I was just about to put you on ignore, then thought I'd take one final look.

Listen you cretinous, dumb-fuck, aborted remnants of a retarded, brain dead amoeba. As has previously been explained to you fossil fuels does not mean the fuels come from fossils. The fuel itself is the fossil. It is a remanant of once living organisms. The fuel is the fossil. Understand?

Cretin.

Goodbye.

This is how people talk when they can't debate with data and facts. Good riddance.

 

[kmguru]

This argument does not seem to be going anywhere. Why do not we do a mass balance on biologycal products verses total oil (extracted oil so far plus the reserves) That will tell us how much bio material is needed to produce this oil. And do not forget the natural gas and methane hydride part too for the mass balance. Assume the plants and invertebrates started 360 million years ago.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

This argument does not seem to be going anywhere. Why do not we do a mass balance on biological products verses total oil (extracted oil so far plus the reserves) That will tell us how much bio material is needed to produce this oil. And do not forget the natural gas and methane hydride part too for the mass balance. Assume the plants and invertebrates started 360 million years ago.

3600 million years ago matey

Considering that pre-cambrian single celled organisms had sufficient biomass to saturate oxygen sinks like rocks and oceans with oxygen, and then convert the earth's atmosphere from around 0.2% O2 to as high as 30% 02 at one point, I don't see a problem with the biomass issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Catastrophe

 

[OilIsMastery]

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

In Precambrian rock, it's not intuitively obvious where these hydrocarbons come from," said Sherwood Lollar, a professor of geology at the university. ...They don't look like microbial," Sherwood Lollar said.

 

[kmguru]

"The only real opponents to this story (of abiogenic origin) are in Western Europe and in the United States, and they are the professional petroleum geologists," he said.

Wonder why?

 

[OilIsMastery]

"The only real opponents to this story (of abiogenic origin) are in Western Europe and in the United States, and they are the professional petroleum geologists," he said.

Wonder why?

LOL. Paychecks can do wonders for peoples's opinions haha.

And Deffeyes (Shell) and Campbell (BP) have done a great job convincing people. 76% of Americans and 85% of Brits think we are running out of oil.

Of course Boone Pickens and Matt Simmons are laughing as they count their billions and fly around the world in their Gulfstreams burning hydrocarbons all day long.

 

[iceaura]

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

“
In Precambrian rock, it's not intuitively obvious where these hydrocarbons come from," said Sherwood Lollar, a professor of geology at the university. ...They don't look like microbial," Sherwood Lollar said.

If anyone actually reads this link, they will discover that the "hydrocarbons" discussed in the quote are not oil, but gases like methane.

The rest of the link is mostly general refutation of the early (1950s) Russian claims of abiotic origin for regular oil deposits, refutations and rebukes from scientists at universities - not commercially employed petroleum geologists.

That's 0 for about ten, on accurate portrayal of links in the threads on this topic by this poster.

I don't know if our poster here actually reads his links, but if he does, there are only two explanations for his pattern of quoting and discussion: he doesn't understand them, or he is deliberately misrepresenting their content for some reason.

 

[OilIsMastery]

If anyone actually reads this link, they will discover that the "hydrocarbons" discussed in the quote are not oil, but gases like methane.

The rest of the link is mostly general refutation of the early (1950s) Russian claims of abiotic origin for regular oil deposits, refutations and rebukes from scientists at universities - not commercially employed petroleum geologists.

That's 0 for about ten, on accurate portrayal of links in the threads on this topic by this poster.

I don't know if our poster here actually reads his links, but if he does, there are only two explanations for his pattern of quoting and discussion: he doesn't understand them, or he is deliberately misrepresenting their content for some reason.

Are you aware that hydrocarbons refer to both methane and crude oil? Apparently not because you aren't aware of anything else either.