You are changing the subject to avoid discussing the issue - as you have done all along - feel free to make a point, ask a question, or refute any of the science I have referenced - I'd be happy to take you on. However given that I have made no accusation of you being an SP, which you failed to comprehend from the simple statement below, I doubt if you'd be able to keep up with me.
No, I am responding to your change in subject, and at any time you care to return to debate, the Biotic, Abiotic origine of oil I will glandly engauge you in debate. I have provide reams of information that refute your assumption's on the theory of abiotic oil.
such as? I've had a quick scan through you posts and I've not seen anything that either hasn't already been thoroughly refuted or has any relevance or significance to the discussion. Neither have you been anything to say about the multitude of scientific sources I've supplied you that both refute your hyposthesis, and support the biogenic origin theory. Feel free to run it by me again though
Now if that isn't a accusation of being a sock puppet, what is it? As for keeping up with you preppy, hell I'm doing the back stroke waiting for you to get in sight, to make it a race. Your nothing more than a post grad student, sucking off some Prof's grant.
And yet you continue to avoid debate with me - I can smell blood here - go on little man - refute something - have the guts to have an opinion that's on the topic - really surprise me and reference it with something that's even half reputable. - my research funding comes from industry and was self-sourced btw - as such my research grant is actually larger than some tenured professors
Just to put everybody's mind at ease, I checked the IP's on Buffalo and OilMastery's accounts. Totally different. ~String
Heh.. completely ignoring the fact that your point is completely irrelevant, I'd say you were right. Can you show me how methane equates to oil ?
Buffalo strikes me as much different in style and approach from oilmystery, but the similarity between Oilismastery and the former Ice Age Civilizations is quite noticeable, down to the type of academic credentials claimed, vocabulary, syntax, Biblical leanings, and so forth. Just out of curiosity - - - ?
The only blood you smell is your own, As I said when you ready to return to the subject, I will gladly debate to you, but I will also respond to your inaine babble, which avoides having to debate anything about the subject. Says you, as for me, I am the King Of Romania.
Time for a challenge. Having posted considerable data that refutes the notion of commercially viable oil and gas of abiogenic origin without any reciprocate refutation, the argument against an abiogenic origin of crude oil and natural gas is now well and truly won. However it occurs to me that the very same information can be used to predict where abiogenic origin hydrocarbons may be found, and what properties they would have. If gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons could be found that match all of these criteria, then we would have a case for commercially viable oil and gas of abiogenic origin that would be very difficult to dispute. In the spirit of good old British fair play therefore, before I declare final victory, I will set my swivel-eyed tinfoil-hat-wearing chums a final challenge, to produce real hard evidence based on the current state of science. The cchallenge is to find me commerical field that matches ALL of these criteria: 1. Geology "the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat" (Proskurowski et al 2008) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5863/604 So based upon those predictions (which are much vaunted by the church of abiogenic oil), and to allow for no abmiguity, both the source rock and the reservoir rock must be basalt. It must be a significant distance (in the region of 1500 Km lets say) from any potential sedimentary sources, and be devoid of any horizontal fissuring that would allow migration from sediments. Evidence of vertical fissuring below the reservoir is essential to demonstrate migration from the mantle. Evidence of vertical fissuring above the reservoir above renders the example invalid due to the possibility of downward migration of oil. Depth should be beyond 5,000m (of rock - not of seawater and rock combined) and the reservoir should contain both liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons. So basically guys your best bet is to start looking for an oil field/well within about a maximum of 300km of a spreading centre (perhaps a little more in the pacific as it is spreading faster than the atlantic). 2. Properties of the Hydrocarbons. Diamondoids present in liquid hydrocarbons must be consistent with an original carbon source of abiotic origin - therefore carbon isotope ratios of around 0 to 5 per mil must be demonstrable. (Mello and Moldowan 2005 - Petroleum: To Be Or Not To Be Abiogenic http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/mello/mello.htm ) It has been noted by Abiogenic origin advocates such as Gold that abiogenic gaseous hydrocarbons (i.e methane) are invariably associated with helium which is also present within the mantle in large quatities. Therefore, helium content of the gases extracted must be consistent with uncontaminated mantle derived fluids as described in Jenden and Kaplan (1993) http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7052010 Isotopuic signatures of the carbon contained in the hydrocarbons (both liquid and gaseous) must be consistent with that that of an abioic origin as stated in Sherwood-Lollar et al (2002) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6880/abs/416522a.html If I have made any errors in these prediction please feel free to correct me with quotations from and links to, the relevant papers - if they are indeed appropriate I will edit this thread and the challenge therein accordingly. Responses must be correctly referenced with valid peer review science of no older than 25 years (unless a special case can be made for submitting older material) Any responses that are not able to answer all points raised will be deemed insufficient as proof - although merit will be given for getting close as this will no doubt raise interesting paradoxes, stimulate intellgent discussion, and prompt further study into the current state of the science. Any responses that attempt to refute the science presented without approriate peer review or with peer reviewed work that has not in itself already been refuted thouroughly in this thread (such as this one: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm) will result in that poster considered as having lost the argument. You may now impress me with your superior knowledge.
I just found an article that refutes that - written by your buddy JF Kenney http://www.gasresources.net/SwedenProjectResults.htm
i have noticed all the evidence given for abiotic comes from the same people most of it 20 years old. could there be a reason for that oh thats right it was debunked
While I'm sure OilyMasturbator and Buffoon Loon are either busily beavering away in a vain attempt to rise to the challenge I set them, or have run away in shame, I could not resist the opportunity of further micturation on their pyrotechnics with this absolute gem (please pardon the geological pun). By way of a bit of background, Jean Laherrere is the real deal - a petroleum geologist with nearly 40 years worth of experience in the oil industry, and - amongst his many acheivements - too long to list here - he was instrumental in discovering Africa's largest Oil field. There is a 10 page listing of his books and peer-reviewed publications available here if anyone is interested: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/bibliography.pdf Like I said - the guy's no slouch http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012805_no_free_pt3.shtml Bye-bye Gold - bye bye Krayushkin - and....wait for it........."Oh my God they killed Kenney" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A few years ago I spent about 12 hours looking at the points and counter points of the Abiogenic Oil supporters and their critics. I no longer remember the points and counterpoints but I do remember my conclusion. My conclusion was that there is probably no such thing as Abiogenic Oil (or at least the oil that we have been using was primarily biogenic oil). All deep oil that has been found can be accounted for by biogenic processes. The supposed abiogenic processes for creating oil are not believed to be real by most scientists. Even if there were real abiogenic processes for creating oil there is no reason to believe that those processes would be quick and therefore they would not make oils a sustainable fuel at current levels of consumption.
