Oil is NOT a fossil fuel...

Zohaar818 · June 25, 2005

Yeah, links to more abiotic theorists, none with scientific credibility. Do you consider that some kind of scientific proof of your claims?

By the way, don't let the members here confuse you with facts. You might be able to get some sci-fi publisher to print this work of fiction you've got going here :hihi:

I refer you to my answer to Erasmus below....and leave you to your idel pursuits and even more idle chatter...

-Zohaar

Erasmus00 · June 25, 2005

"C12/C13 isotope ratios in oil are indicative of life."
This is the same as saying methane is an indicator of life when it clearly is not the sole indicator and cannot be relied upon as such. Methane is found on Titan and no one is claiming biological origin for that, are they? Yet it is always bandied about that methane is an indicator of life. And I bet if they find c12 or c13 isotopes in Titan methane you will be among the first to say that is not proof of life... And you would be right. An indication is not the same as proof. The word indicate comes from the same root as the word to indicte someone..which I think you will agree is not the same as proving him guilty.

I think you don't understand how c12/c13 ratio works. Both isotopes are found naturally everywhere, but living things preferentially incorporate c12 into the compounds they make. So "biological" compounds tend to have a higher c12/c13 ratio then inorganic. Now, I won't make any claims as to titan, because its a different body then Earth. But, here on Earth, the c12/c13 ratio as high as that found in oils is only found in biological hydrocarbons. I'm not saying this destroys your theory, but that it cetainly knocks a leg out from under it.

Further:

I already demonstrated that carbon 14, another 'indicator of life 'has been found in diamonds..so there goes that theory..and I've posted links showing that methane and helium stimulated with lasers produce diamonds..a process not considered in standard diamond making theory but easily done in a lab. That was in response to..let's see..oh yes, another of Uncle Al's witty contributions...Uncle Al, I believe, ridiculed the quoted statement that the same geothermal processes are at play in oil formation deep in the crust that diamonids were created from.
So what to make of LoL's science or the site in which it was demonstrated that stimulating methane and helium under pressure by laser makes half-carot diamonds in the lab?

Is there a dispute to that?

Carbon 14 is made by cosmic rays produce neutrons in the upper atmosphere. These neutrons slam into nitrogen, creating carbon 14 here on Earth. The rate of carbon 14 production is constant, so we know the ratio of carbon 14 to other carbon isotopes. Living things absorb some of this carbon 14 over the course of living, but once they die the c14 decays. Its not anomolous at all that carbon 14 be found in diamonds, and I don't understand your point. Also, I don't understand what synthetic half carot diamonds have to do with anything? There are companies that can grow diamonds one molecular layer at a time, thats far more impressive.

The reason this abiotic argument makes sense in terms of the economics of oil production is that it now seems we are on the verge of finding an alternative way to get oil than to wait a million years for bio-matter to magically become oil [a process we have not duplicated in the lab, as far as i know, to demostrate the validity of the theory]
But I believe we have the technology to test abiotic origin if indeed it works as the growing number of scientists arer beginning to accept.

Thomas Gold (of my alma mater Cornell University) drilled a crater in Sweden to test his abiotic theory. It was a commercial flop. I should also note that Gold's real area of expertise was astrophysics (I believe he was the first to realize pulsars were neutron stars). And, in fact, that number of scientists who believe in abiotic origin is declining. With the death of Gold, the west has lost the abiotic theory's leading supporter.

Lawrence of Livermore is not a creationist institute and if they say they can demonstrate that oil is not dependent on bio origin and that hydrocarbon reserves are huge below the mantle, I tend to believe them. it also gives hope that we can duplicate the process enough times to enough skeptics to end the argument.

They might be right, they might be wrong. They certainly haven't demonstrated that hydrocarbon reserves below the mantle are huge quite yet.

Again, Uncle Al..his first response was to dismiss on the ground sit was Russain science. '"giggle".[ probably one of his more science based posts, I might add]. [NOT]
What he portrayed in his view of Russian science is now being echoed in your assumptions that folks who believe in God are disqualified from being able to conduct objective experiments. Well, Einstein believed in God, but oddly, not in Creationism.
And either do I..I am not a creationist..and do not hold to any of their tenets regarding the great jehovah or Intelligent design.
But I don't have any problem with them using science to argue science..and I would think it is more an indictment against the current science that people seeking objectivity are forced on to Bible-beating sites just to get to even read the facts about things science can't argue with and can't explain. People like me.
I am only interested in finding a theory that takes anomalies into account and explains them, not ignores them completely. Any theorist who does, from any camp and for any reason will find in me a true skeptic.

Where did this stuff about creationism come from? While I am not a creationist, I am a graduate student in physics who believes in god, and I have made no assumption that people who believe in god can't conduct objective experiments.

I didn't quote UncleAl giggling over Russian science, I posted

"If you shoot a microliter of petroluem into a gas chromatograph or a liquid chromatograph it is screamingly obvious it is neither an equilibrium thermodynamic product (e,g, SASOL) nor a non-equilibrium kinetic branch. 95+% of the linear alkanes are even-numbered. They were made by acetyl-CoA oligimerization - that's life."

I don't understand how raving about creationism answers that point. You are looking only at the anomolies in the "organic" oil theory and not at the anamolies in the abiotic oil theory. The even numbered linear alkanes and the c12/c13 ratio are HUGE anomolies in the abiotic theory and you won't even address them.

-Will

Harzburgite · June 25, 2005

Apart from the science I get detractors asking me to name just one producing oil well at 30,000 feet. Well I pointed out 9 within the land boundaries and territorial waters of the United States..two in Oklahoma and 7 in the Gulf of Mexico.
You wanna argue that point?

You bet your sweet *** I do.

A. I cannot speak for the other posters but I have read carefully each of your posts and each of your links. The fact that you repeat this flawed assertion here suggests you have not bothered to read mine - specifically, post 65.

B. I think that the six points you are so anxious to discuss do raise some issues that merit attention. However, I am not going to waste my time considering them when the accuracy and reliablity of your pronouncements is so obviously questionable.

I attempted to point out your errors in post 65. I expected, faced with facts, that you would accept your error on this minor point and we could turn to the meat of the matter. Instead you simply repeat the error.

C. So lets examine the nine oil producing wells below 30,000' you have identified.

1. "The "Deepwater Pathfinder" is drilling an exploration well in Walker Ridge 285. ......NOTE: this was being done in 2002..3 years ago...

NOTE: 30000 feet = 9,144 meter

a)I'll go over it again slowly: the total depth of an exploration well is typically much more than the depth from which any production may come.

:hihi: This was an exploration well. As far as I am able to determine there was no discovery. The well is not a producer. There is not a single mention of producing oil from 30,000' or deeper.

2.You next post this

"In a sample of 20,715 deep wells drilled in the U.S. through December 1998, 11,522 (56 percent) are classified as produci"ng gas and/or oil wells, with gas wells comprising nearly 75 percent of producing wells. Of the 1,676 wells exceeding 20,000 feet, 974 (58 percent) are producing wells"..

Why?

There is not a single mention of producing oil from 30,000' or deeper.

3

.Oklahoma has long played an important role in the development of deep drilling.
The first hole drilled below 30,000 feet for commercial production purposes was completed in Beckham county in 1972 . In 1974, drilling commenced on GHK/Lone Star's Bertha Rogers 1-27 in Washita County, eventually reaching a world record depth of 31,441 feet."

This is a gas well. There is not a single mention of producing oil from 30,000' or deeper.

4.*

Today’s drilling technology allows the completion of wells up to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) deep."

Of course it does, for gas wells. There is not a single mention of producing oil from 30,000' or deeper.

5

.If you scroll down to page 12 [of 26] you will see a color graphic.. showing a map of wells located in the Gulf of Mexico that are drilled [and producing] at levels to BELOW 30,000 feet. A total of 7 drilled since 1997 and all just a couple hundred miles south of New Orleans

These are gas wells. Not oil wells. They are less than 30,000' [27k too 30k]. Their production zone depth is not noted. There is not a single mention of producing oil from 30,000' or deeper.

Can you please accept this basic fact so we can move onto the interesting stuff, or will wounded pride inhibit your scientific integrity?

Zohaar818 · June 25, 2005

I think you don't understand how c12/c13 ratio works. Both isotopes are found naturally everywhere, but living things preferentially incorporate c12 into the compounds they make. So "biological" compounds tend to have a higher c12/c13 ratio then inorganic. Now, I won't make any claims as to titan, because its a different body then Earth. But, here on Earth, the c12/c13 ratio as high as that found in oils is only found in biological hydrocarbons. I'm not saying this destroys your theory, but that it cetainly knocks a leg out from under it.

Fine..between the holes in your theory and holes in mine it is obvious that a new look must be taken at the evidence that results in a theory that accounts for ALL the anomalies.

THAT IS MY POINT. IT has been MY POINT [not my theeory] since the very first post. Can I make it any clearer?

I cannot for the life of me understand why you have accused me of assuming that a belief in a god undermines science. Nowhere in the post you quoted did I even mention religion/creationsim, any of it. Anyway, I replied with, again, what I believe are two of the larger anomolies in your abiotic oil theory, and how c12/c13 ratios work. You are welcome to read them, or not, as you see fit. But please do not accuse me of dismissing good science out of hand because the scientists believed in god. Thats ridiculous.
-Will

I have no idea what ever gave you that idea..I even re-read my post and still don't understand. I didn;'t accuse you of accusing me of anything..and I certainly don't believe that science should be judged on the merits of one's theology!

Uncle Al accused me of relying on socialist -russian] science and those were his grounds for dismissing it out of hand.

others then complained to me that I was posting some science fgfound on Creationist websites and that was their reason for dismissing them out of hand.

Being a child of the Cold war i find it odd that godless communists and God=fearing Creationists are on the same page, scientificalyy.

I find it amusing that Cornell's professor Gold is neither creationist nor communist but is dismissed out of hand as being a dissenting voice..a wacky professor I guess.

For the record and sincerely my point is and has been..as I said in posts on this thread over the last two weeks..that it seems most nay sayers are attacking my posts not on the merits of the science per se but based on the assumed political or theological persuasions of the messenger and ignoring the science.

I also stated that I am not a petrochemist but find it odd that petrochemists and geologists are keeping mum..that i find it no coincidence the more than 50% of the world's geologists work for Big Oil...and that no one from big oil is disputing that many petro products come from wells drilled below 30,000 feet..below what archeologists and paleo-archeologists say is the layer wherein lies the fossil record.

I have no idea if the therory as stated is absolutely correct but I am dead sure , based on the listed anomalies that no one is explaining, that standard theory is INCORRECT..

And instead of getting answers to those anomlaies I am being asked to explain the supposed anomalies in 'my theory'.

Whoever said it was 'my theory'? it is 'A theory' for which there is a substantial body of evidence.

lastly, yes, I agree c12 and c 13 are 'indicators' but nothing more than that. As to how they get into oil ..hmmm..since oil rises from beneath the mantle and into the crust it would have to pick up sediments and bio-markers once it got into the upper levels.

Now explain to me please how helium and carbon 14 gets into diamonds....

In the meantime..sorry if you think I was being hostile to your post or your views.

I honestly wasn't

Zohaar

Carbon 14 is made by cosmic rays produce neutrons in the upper atmosphere. These neutrons slam into nitrogen, creating carbon 14 here on Earth. The rate of carbon 14 production is constant, so we know the ratio of carbon 14 to other carbon isotopes. Living things absorb some of this carbon 14 over the course of living, but once they die the c14 decays. Its not anomolous at all that carbon 14 be found in diamonds, and I don't understand your point. Also, I don't understand what synthetic half carot diamonds have to do with anything? There are companies that can grow diamonds one molecular layer at a time, thats far more impressive.

Again my answer was directed to Uncle Al who dismissed the russian science..especially the bit where it was mentioned the same pressures and temperatures needed to make abiotic oil were needed to make diamonids. He laughed at that ..so i posted the articles about hydrocarbon cracking and the fact that such reactions as he suggested only occurred when there was oxygen..and that methane and hydrocarbons starved of same at pressure will behave radically different than his high-school science would permit.

Thomas Gold (of my alma mater Cornell University) drilled a crater in Sweden to test his abiotic theory. It was a commercial flop. I should also note that Gold's real area of expertise was astrophysics (I believe he was the first to realize pulsars were neutron stars). And, in fact, that number of scientists who believe in abiotic origin is declining. With the death of Gold, the west has lost the abiotic theory's leading supporter.

Gee, he drilled one well that didn't strike..gosh. Oil companies must drill 28 to get one that is viable. 28! I'll wait until he drills 27 more that don't strike before I call it quits on Gold

They might be right, they might be wrong. They certainly haven't demonstrated that hydrocarbon reserves below the mantle are huge quite yet.

Nor have you demonstrated that there is none to be found.

Where did this stuff about creationism come from? While I am not a creationist, I am a graduate student in physics who believes in god, and I have made no assumption that people who believe in god can't conduct objective experiments.

The quote came from this thread and several respondents compalining that i was getting my links from creationist sites or abiotic theorists...!!! Well gee...like I said..I agree that some of the science DOES come from creationsist websites, but like you I don't think that makes the science suspect if, indeed, their experiments were strictly by the book and objective. Can we agree to agree on that?

As far as the rest coming from abiotic theorists..I don't undertstand the problem with that..so what if they are? To get the science defending evolution you go to an evolutionist website, not the kansas State Board of eductaion. To find out about physics theory like say, chaos theory you go to a chaos website, yes?

I didn't quote UncleAl giggling over Russian science, I posted

"If you shoot a microliter of petroluem into a gas chromatograph or a liquid chromatograph it is screamingly obvious it is neither an equilibrium thermodynamic product (e,g, SASOL) nor a non-equilibrium kinetic branch. 95+% of the linear alkanes are even-numbered. They were made by acetyl-CoA oligimerization - that's life."

Yes, I read that somewhere..and it may be perfectly true, too...but it reminds me of the old Chinese recipe for rabbit stew..[step one catch a rabbit.]

Please be more specific, what 'petroleum'..raw or refined..deep well or shallow..Arabian or Venezuelan? Really...it would be different if you said tests conducted at the bottom of deep well production before any 'petroleum' was pumped have determined that...

Or is it your contention that after the petroleum has been drilled, pumpoed and processed, firing a microliter at a gas chromatograph will show....?

The even numbered linear alkanes and the c12/c13 ratio are HUGE anomolies in the abiotic theory and you won't even address them.
-Will

I could start a whole new thread on this comment alone...and it would start with I've shown you mine now show me yours...again it relies on indicators as if t hey were absolute proof and they are not..and again, it is perfectly obvious under abiotic theory how c12 AND C13 GET INTO SAMPLES INTO OIL AS IT RISES TO OR IS PUMPED FROM SHALLOW WELLS.

You can't even drill under the antarctic sheet and into pristine water below the ice pack for fear of contaminating the samples with surface microbes and grime from the drill bits...but you expect you can do that in oil wells drilled to 30,000 feet below sea-water and sediment? Oil that has been lying in wait for how may years?

Of all the anomalies you could call me on that is the least damning as far as i can see.

And NONE of this answers point number 6 on the list of MY anomalies.

Again it goes unanswered..as if finding flaws in my admittedly imperfect arguments makes your theory flawless..as if it all by itself proves your theory true without having to explain it thoroughly and completely..as if it accounts for the gaping holes in the standard model so many want to cling to.

I am neither socialist as Uncle Al wants it, or creationist as Clay supposes..I am simply arguing for a radically revised theory that accounts for the anomalies. PERIOD.

Whatever theory emerges will have to reply to the 6 points raised by the abiotic scientists..

Why people resort to personal attacks, inuendo that infers weak-mindedness, blind adherence to creationist theology or some other dogma..why the tone is the tone here as reflected by those two in particular and others in passing... I can only guess.

-Zohaar

Erasmus00 · June 25, 2005

Gee, he drilled one well that didn't strike..gosh. Oil companies must drill 28 to get one that is viable. 28! I'll wait until he drills 27 more that don't strike before I call it quits on Gold [/quote[

Gold died. Last year I believe.

I didn't quote UncleAl giggling over Russian science, I posted
"If you shoot a microliter of petroluem into a gas chromatograph or a liquid chromatograph it is screamingly obvious it is neither an equilibrium thermodynamic product (e,g, SASOL) nor a non-equilibrium kinetic branch. 95+% of the linear alkanes are even-numbered. They were made by acetyl-CoA oligimerization - that's life."

Yes, I read that somewhere..and it may be perfectly true, too...but it reminds me of the old Chinese recipe for rabbit stew..[step one catch a rabbit.]
Please be more specific, what 'petroleum'..raw or refined..deep well or shallow..Arabian or Venezuelan? Really...it would be different if you said tests conducted at the bottom of deep well production before any 'petroleum' was pumped have determined that...
Or is it your contention that after the petroleum has been drilled, pumpoed and processed, firing a microliter at a gas chromatograph will show....?

I could start a whole new thread on this comment alone...and it would start with I've shown you mine now show me yours...again it relies on indicators as if t hey were absolute proof and they are not..and again, it is perfectly obvious under abiotic theory how c12 AND C13 GET INTO SAMPLES INTO OIL AS IT RISES TO OR IS PUMPED FROM SHALLOW WELLS.
You can't even drill under the antarctic sheet and into pristine water below the ice pack for fear of contaminating the samples with surface microbes and grime from the drill bits...but you expect you can do that in oil wells drilled to 30,000 feet below sea-water and sediment? Oil that has been lying in wait for how may years?

You aren't reading my posts about c12/c13, and you certainly don't seem to understand whats going on with the linear alkanes. All oil must contain carbon, some of it carbon 12, some of carbon 13. Its the ratio throughout that can determine wether you are looking at biologically created hydrocarbons or abiotic hydrocarbons. In the oil we are currently drilling, the ratio indicates the hydrocarbons are organic. This isn't a matter of small contaminants, its throughout. Same with the alkanes, its a property throughout. Coupled with the fact that every oil deposit has been associated with sedimentary rock, and a picture is starting to be formed.

Of all the anomalies you could call me on that is the least damning as far as i can see.
And NONE of this answers point number 6 on the list of MY anomalies.
Again it goes unanswered..as if finding flaws in my admittedly imperfect arguments makes your theory flawless..as if it all by itself proves your theory true without having to explain it thoroughly and completely..as if it accounts for the gaping holes in the standard model so many want to cling to.

What was point 6 on your list of anomolies? Was that the deep oil wells thing? Consider that tectonic upheavels routinely push large chunks of rock deep into the Earth. Also, perhaps fossils aren't found in many of the oil samples simply because the tectonic upheavels that forced the rock deeper down did something to the microscopic fossils. Also, consider that all deposits of oil are associated with sedimentary rock. That certainly is one more support for the biological oil claims.
-Will

Harzburgite · June 25, 2005

Zohaar, as long as you persist in posting errors of fact I shall continue to point them out. I trust you don't mind. I expect and approve of reciprocal action.

..and that no one from big oil is disputing that many petro products come from wells drilled below 30,000 feet..

I am disputing it. The total hydrocarbon production from below 30,000' is vanishingly small. It is limiited to gas.

....below what archeologists and paleo-archeologists say is the layer wherein lies the fossil record.

If you are going to argue a technical case it pays to get your terminology and facts right.

1. Archaeologists have nothing to say about such horizons. They are concerned with historic and pre-historic human remains, artifacts and constructions. I have never heard of a paleo-archeologist.

2. Geologists do not say fossileferous rocks are restricted to above 30,000'. Go read some elementary geology texts.

..Gee, he drilled one well that didn't strike..gosh. Oil companies must drill 28 to get one that is viable. 28! I'll wait until he drills 27 more that don't strike before

Crap. Crap in breadth and depth.

The strike rate in the 1970's was generally 1 in 10. In the 1990's it was 1 in 3. This was as a result of a better understanding of oil formation (using amazingly the same biogenic origin theory you have problems with); improved identification of source rocks (ditto); 3-D seismic.

Plus, that strike rate is for commercial, exploitable resources. Most so-called dry wells have significant quantities of hydrocarbons present. Rather than one well in 28 being a strike, it is more like one well in 28 being truly dry.

It does seem to me Zohaar you are arguing from a standpint of considerable ignorance in these matters. I'm trying like crazy to swing round to the same side as you (I admired Tommy Gold.) , but your persistence in spouting garbage makes it difficult to climb on board.

I am neither socialist as Uncle Al wants it, or creationist as Clay supposes
Why people resort to personal attacks, inuendo that infers weak-mindedness, blind adherence to creationist theology or some other dogma..why the tone is the tone here as reflected by those two in particular and others in passing... I can only guess.

I don't think you are a creationist. I think Russian science is pretty damn good. I am not conducting a personal attack. I do not think you are weak minded.

I do know some of your contentions, which I have detailed, are wrong. Period.

Zohaar818 · June 26, 2005

I think Russian science is pretty damn good. I am not conducting a personal attack. I do not think you are weak minded.
I do know some of your contentions, which I have detailed, are wrong. Period.

How many times do I have to say I am not a PETROCHEMIST?

How many times do I have to say it is not MY THEORY?

Since you agree t hat the six point list is interesting and relevant why don't we discuss that?

I do my best to find links online to answer not only your questions but mine..and I think I do okay for a layman..but I am not a scientist and this argument is not a point of pride to me.

I get miffed when folks dismiss russians out of hand in one post and creat ionists in the other.

As for deep producing wells I asked my firend to name the fileds he is sure the drills go that deep and produce.

Honestly, until this week I assumed gas and oil came from similar fields at similar depths. I googled deep oil wells and came to the Oklahoma site and the Gulf sites...oil and gas are hydrocarbons...and both fall under the fossil fuel list...at least when you check out companies, it is rare that they explore for oil and not gas..or vice versa.

I am glad you have some regard for russian science.

I am glad you realize I am not a creationist.

I wonder why you did not mention Lawrence of Livermore's conclusions that oil may not be from bio-origins..should I post that again?

All I do is post the message and the links...when asked direct questions I do my best to find a relevant answer...Sue me if not everything is online..or from a non-creationist website, or an abiotic one.

Sue me for not being as into the subject as Professor Gold, say.

You don't want to believe the abiotic science as posted or that there is something to the theory, FINE..don't.

It still doesn't answer the points raised in that list..points not made by me but by scientists who have yet to be persuaded of abiotic theory but who are aware of the flaws in their own.

It is the desire to pounce on abiotic theory on political or theological grounds I take issue with...

When I joined I told everyone I am not a scientist though I find some science fascinating.

My interest is is ANOMALIES. How many times do I have TO REPEAT THAT?

Abiotic theory addresses the anomalies and the flaws in biogenic oil theory..it tries to account for the physical evidence..like the helium discussed in point six..and it has its supporters...admittedly more educated than I.

Folks here seem to busy making persoanal attacks and dismissive statements as if all by themselves they make the flaws disappear in their own theeory...as if putting me down or proving me wrong about oil well depth makes the helium disappear from the wells.

Well it doesn't. I am and have been willing to be persuaded to the biogenic arguments if they can account for the six point list of unexplained anomalies I posted..even half of them would be a good start.

You said you want to discuss them..fine..let's. That is what I asked now for DAYS on this thread..to no avil..to deaf ears.

I , with my admittedly and self-confessed limitations have done my best to answer honest questions while getting nothing reciprocal..those 6 points remain unanswered.

For folks so sure about everything, and with so much science on your side I find it shameful that this remains so.

You either agree that your biogenic theory needs revision or you don't. That the anomalies cited don't persuade you that this is the case...well..that is evidence enough for me that to pursue a conversation is pointless, futile and a waste of time.

If you want to have the last word..so be it...it won't alter the lsit of anomalies.

And really..I have a life, a family and some real responsibilities elsewhere that better occupy my time and patience.

Good day to you all.

-Zohaar

Zohaar818 · June 26, 2005

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_oil_991213.html

Prospecting for Oil? Look In an Asteroid Crater

By Michael Paine

Special to space.com

posted: 07:27 am ET

14 December 1999

The Earth has suffered thousands of violent collisions with asteroids and comets over the last four billion years. The scars from these collisions are impact craters. But the Earth hides its wounds well -- less than two hundred impact craters have been discovered. Many are buried deep below the surface. They were only found by accident during geological surveys that were part of the massive, ongoing effort to find oil for an energy-dependent world.

-Zohaar[/i]

EDIT: Copyrighted text deleted. This is your second warning.

Zohaar818 · June 26, 2005

http://cc.ysu.edu/physics-astro/column/aug272000.html

Diamond miners in South Africa, oil prospectors in the Gulf of Mexico, the 49ers' from California's golden era, and nickel miners in Canada have something in common other than their search for precious materials. Their bond links them literally through time and space.

Recent geological studies are suggesting that at least part of Earth's supply of oil, diamonds, copper, nickel, and gold came from leftovers of our solar system's formation, brought into the terrestrial mix by asteroids, meteorites, and comets.

EDIT: Copyrighted text removed. This is your THIRD warning.

Zohaar818 · June 26, 2005

Oil News

8 April. 1999

Huge Oil Reserves Found Under the Caspian Sea

The former USSR province of Azerbaijan has been known to contain significant oil deposits for over 70 years. This country is now the scene of a great oil rush by the world's major oil companies. Huge reserves have been discovered under the Caspian Sea. The size of the deposits are not accurately known but are at least equal to 2-3 Kuwait's. With the influx of the oil companies, major redevelopment of capital Baku is taking place. Formerly a province of the USSR, Baku had a huge industrial base with factories employing over 30,000 people. When the Russians left, Baku was stripped bare, the factories closed and the city left in ruins. Now, the rich oil fields have attracted multinational oil companies and money is flowing in for redeveloping this city.

Price of Oil Drops

The price of oil dropped to around US$10.00 a barrel, the lowest it has been for many years, now crude oil is US$15.00 a barrel. There are now so many huge reserves of oil that many oil fields have been closed down because the oil can't be sold. In the USA, once thriving oil towns in Oklahoma have become like ghost towns with the closure of the oil fields.

Mergers

BP and Amoco have merged and now BP have taken over ARCO to form the largest Oil Conglomeration in the World. With closure of oil fields the industry is ripe for mergers and takeovers. Companies without marketing clout need to form partnerships with major market oil movers in order to sell their crude oil.

http://geologynet.com/news.htm#Oil%20News

Zohaar's Note: So why is oil at $60 a barrell now? It is not because supplies are low..it is because refining capacity is limited..and profitably so. If oil was sold at the true price [reflecting supply] it would be cheaper than water...but oil is sold at prices relative to demand..and who controls the supply of refined oil? Who wants you to believe the source is limited and rapidly declining? Doesn't oil as a 'fossil fuel' fit right in with their policies?

The list which remains unexplained:

1) Petroleum and methane are found frequently in geographic patterns of long lines or arcs, which are related more to deep-seated large-scale structural features of the crust, than to the smaller scale patchwork of the sedimentary deposits.

(2) Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be hydrocarbon-rich at many different levels, corresponding to quite different geological epochs, and extending down to the crystalline basement that underlies the sediment. An invasion of an area by hydrocarbon fluids from below could better account for this than the chance of successive deposition.

(3) Some petroleums from deeper and hotter levels lack almost completely the biological evidence . Optical activity and the odd-even carbon number effect are sometimes totally absent, and it would be difficult to suppose that such a thorough destruction of the biological molecules had occurred as would be required to account for this, yet leaving the bulk substance quite similar to other crude oils.

(4) Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable or where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great depth; in active volcanic regions, even where there is a minimum of sediments; and there are massive amounts of methane hydrates (methane-water ice combinations) in permafrost and ocean deposits, where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of biological source material is present.

(5) The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common chemical or isotopic features, quite independent of the varied composition or the geological ages of the formations in which they are found. Such chemical signatures may be seen in the abundance ratios of some minor constituents such as traces of certain metals that are carried in petroleum; or a common tendency may be seen in the ratio of isotopes of some elements, or in the abundance ratio of some of the different molecules that make up petroleum. Thus a chemical analysis of a sample of petroleum could often allow the general area of its origin to be identified, even though quite different formations in that area may be producing petroleum. For example a crude oil from anywhere in the Middle East can be distinguished from an oil originating in any part of South America, or from the oils of West Africa; almost any of the oils from California can be distinguished from that of other regions by the carbon isotope ratio.

(6) The regional association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium, and a higher level of natural helium seepage in petroleum-bearing regions, has no explanation in the theories of biological origin of peroleum.

Tormod · June 26, 2005

I find it amusing that Cornell's professor Gold is neither creationist nor communist but is dismissed out of hand as being a dissenting voice..a wacky professor I guess.

I don't see how his political or religious views come into play. You keep bringing that up in your posts even though we try to tell you it is not an issue. Drop it. Ignore Uncle Al if you like - but stop this endless nagging.

Tormod · June 26, 2005

8 April. 1999

The price of oil dropped to around US$10.00 a barrel, the lowest it has been for many years, now crude oil is US$15.00 a barrel. There are now so many huge reserves of oil that many oil fields have been closed down because the oil can't be sold. In the USA, once thriving oil towns in Oklahoma have become like ghost towns with the closure of the oil fields.

July 24, 2005:

Price of oil reaches $60 per barrel because of US demands.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/06/24/oil.prices.reut/index.html

Harzburgite · June 26, 2005

Zohaar, post 75 appears to be a response to my detailed discussion of the absence of evidence for deep production of oil. May I take a moment to talk about how I perceived it, starting with the context within which that perception lay?

I have had scientific training (but I am not a working scientist) and am employed in an engineering role in industry. I like science: I watch the Discovery channel, I read New Scientist and Scientific American; I have scores of popular science books in my library. All that is on the light side. On the more academic side, in researching the literature for a possible book on the Drake equation I became fascinated by giant planet formation and migration, and, as a consequence, am now trying to teach myself the fundamentals of finite element analysis.

How is this relevant? For me science is fun, and one of the fun things about it is novelty: new discoveries, new theories. That makes me predisposed to ideas that are new or different. So, I like panspermia as an explanation for the appearance of life on Earth; I am a closet Steady State believer who relishes each shred of evidence that questions the reality of the Big Bang; I think the Viking experiments on Mars in the 1970s almost certainly detected life; and so on.

Abiogenic origin for petroleum? Right on brother. But it has to be supported by facts and those facts have to be assessed rigorously. An error (no matter how small or peripheral) in part of an argument, diminishes the whole argument. This is why I took UncleAl to task for his erroneous statement that oil is never found in igneous rocks (see posts 43 and 50)saying "You do your arguments a disservice by inaccuracy". It is why I corrected your assertion that Russia was the largest oil producer in the world (post 23).

That's the background to my thinking. Now my perception: not once in your post do you say, "ah, yes, I see on these points I was mistaken". I am not trying to get you to eat crow, I just want to know that, on the points I have raised we are now in agreement, so we can move on. Instead I get a litany of all the crap non-scientific attacks used by other posters - in a post that appears to be directed to me. Result: puzzlement and frustration.

I am certainly not asking that you accept everything (or anything) I say at face value. That would be crazy. However, when I make a clear statement please accept that I am very sure of my ground. a) because that is part of how science should work, b)I get very embarassed when I have to acknowledge a mistake.

I'll tackle each of your six points, one at a time, over the next few days/weeks, but if you come back anytime with a claim "but we routinely produce oil from below 30,000 ft" then I am out of here. [Final note - Eclogite made the initial challenge for you to name a single well producing oil from those depths. Frankly I thought he would be on a loser.. there had to be one or two, in zones of very low temperature gradient and rapid subsidence. I was surprised that this is seemingly not the case.]

Zohaar818 · June 26, 2005

http://www.answers.com/topic/abiogenic-petroleum-origin

Evidence supporting abiogenic theory

Supergiant oil fields

Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev, a great russian geologist, was the first to enunciate the modern abiotic theory of petroleum. He studied the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada and concluded that no "source rocks" could form the enormous volume of hydrocarbons. Therefore only abiotic deep petroleum is plausible to explain.

Cold planetary formation

In the late 19th century it was believed that the Earth was extremely hot, possibly completely molten, during its formation. One reason for this was that a cooling, shrinking, planet was necessary in order to explain geologic changes such as mountain formation. A hot planet would have caused methane and other hydrocarbons to be outgassed and oxidized into carbon dioxide and water, thus there would be no carbon remaining under the surface. Planetary science now recognizes that formation was a relatively cool process until radioactive materials accumulate together deep in the planet.

* Recent testing of a zircon, at 4.4 billion years old the world's oldest rock, suggests rocks which formed at temperatures low enough for liquid water. The Moon formed only shortly before this time. [3] (http://larry.atomant.net/mediawiki-1.4beta5/index.php/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#endnote_Valley2002)

Known hydrocarbon sources

Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites contain kerogen-like carbon and hydrocarbons. Heated under pressure, this material would release hydrocarbon fluids in addition to creating solid carbon deposits. Further, at least ten bodies in our solar system are known to contain at least traces of hydrocarbons.

Meteorite ALH84001, believed to be from Mars, contains carbonate minerals which were formed about 3.9 billion years ago. The deposits are in igneous rock. On Earth, microorganisms often create carbonates. However, the material could also have been formed by water carrying carbon dioxide, or by hot carbon-dioxide-bearing fluids.

Kerogen-like material has also been detected in interstellar clouds and dust particles around stars.

Methane On Earth

Methane is typically found on Earth, when not in gas deposits, in methane hydrate deposits under high pressure under deep abyssal plains of oceans, ostensibly forming from the decay of sinking biotic materials. These methane hydrates do subduct in many areas toward the mantle and may thus provide the methane needed to supply a constant supply of petroleum seeping upwards into traps where it collects.

Methane not on Earth

Methane has been detected or is believed to exist in several locations of the solar system. It is believed to have been created by abiotic processes, except possibly on Mars.

* Jupiter

* Mars

* Saturn

o Iapetus

o Titan

* Neptune

o Triton

* Uranus

o Ariel

o Miranda

o Oberon

o Titania

o Umbriel

* Comet Halley

* Comet Hyakutake

In 2004, the Cassini spacecraft confirmed methane clouds and hydrocarbons on Titan, a moon of Saturn.

Traces of methane gas also are in the thin atmosphere of the Earth's Moon.

Methane has also been detected in interstellar clouds.

Unusual deposits

Hydrocarbon deposits have been found in places that are said to be poorly explained by biogenic theory. Some oil fields are being refilled from deep sources, although this does not rule out a deep biogenic source rock. In the White Tiger field in Vietnam and many wells in Russia, oil and natural gas are being produced from reservoirs in granite basement rock. In the Vietnamese case, this rock is believed to have no oil-producing sediments under it, so the biogenic theory requires the oil to have migrated laterally dozens of kilometers along faults from source rock.

Deep microbes

Microbial life has been discovered 4.2 kilometers deep in Alaska and 5.2 kilometers deep in Sweden. Methanophile organisms have been known for some time, and recently it was found that microbial life in Yellowstone National Park is based on hydrogen metabolism. Other deep and hot extremophile organisms continue to be discovered.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientist Frank Chapelle and his colleagues from the USGS and the University of Massachusetts have discovered a potential analog for life on other planets. A community of Archaea is thriving deep in the subsurface source of a hot spring in Idaho. Geothermal hydrogen, not organic carbon, is the primary energy source for this methanogen-dominated microbial community. This is the first documented case of a microbial community completely dominated by Archaea.[4] (http://larry.atomant.net/mediawiki-1.4beta5/index.php/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#endnote_Chapelle2002)

Diamondoids

Tiny diamondoids occur in oils and condensates. They have similar diamond structure and probably the same origin, i.e. from earth´s mantle.

Helium

Helium gas has close association with petroleum. Although ³He is primordial, much He gas is from radioactive decay of uranium. Helium gas is associated with light oils, sometimes accompanied by nitrogen that allow petroleum to reach shallow levels in crust.

Trace metals

Nickel (Ni),vanadium (V),lead (Pb),arsenic (As),cadmium (Cd),mercury (Hg) and others metals frequently occur in oils. Some heavy crude oils have up to % in vanadium. These metals are common in earth´s mantle.

Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits spontaneous generation of hydrocarbons heavier than methane at low pressures. Thermodynamic calculations and experimental studies confirm that n-alkanes (common petroleum components) do not spontaneously evolve from methane at pressures typically found in sedimentary basins, and so the theory of an abiotic origin of hydrocarbons suggests deep generation (below 200 km [5] (http://larry.atomant.net/mediawiki-1.4beta5/index.php/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#endnote_Kenney). )

Biology

Life as we know is mainly based on carbon. First living organisms (archaeobacteria) of course needed to food and this food at least was primordial methane or petroleum. They live at deep levels in crust and they are oil contaminants too became into parts of biomarkers found in natural petroleum. Photossynthesys is a very complicated process that primitive organisms got to achieve the surface of our planet, probably this situation occurred with its evolution seeking for food when petroleum or methane upwelling locally ceased, then making your own food, i.e. autotrophs.

Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis

Another possible formation of inorganic oil is by Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. This process occurs when mantle peridotite is hydrolysed became serpentinite, releasing hydrogen. In presence of catalyst transition metals (e.g. Fe, Ni) hydrogen reacts with carbon dioxide from carbonate rocks and results n-alkanes (hydrocarbons).

Deep structures and petroleum association

Petroleum is found in close correlation to deep structures in the earth, mainly over crustal plate limits (convergent as subduction or continental collision and divergent boundaries). Also over meteorite impact structures since faults can reach earth's mantle. When observe distribuition of oil fields along the arcs for instance Indonesia, Persian Gulf, Apenines in Italy (gas and oil fields), Alaska, Barbados Arc continuing towards Trinidad & Tobago and Venezuela, Atlantic rift and riftogenic basins, this can be confirmed.

Why oil is frequently found in sedimentary basins?

This is because sedimentary basins fill and cover depression areas where occurred deep faults associated to plate limits (rifts, convergent subduction or collision between two plates) and sedimentary strata form good reservoirs (pore spaces) and seals that trap hydrocarbons and these reservoirs are connected to deep sources, through deep faults. Petroleum also occur in crystalline basement but most petroleum companies prefer to drill sedimentary basins, maybe looking for large reservoirs and/or by erroneous idea that petroleum would be form from organic debris(cooking of kerogen).

Ambiguous results

Ongoing research has changed the status of some information. For example, some biomarkers which were interpreted as evidence supporting the biogenic theory have been undermined by finding similar materials in thermophilic situations which are part of abiogenic theories.

Biomarkers

Chemicals of biological origin have been found in many geologic hydrocarbon deposits. These biomarkers were believed to be from known surface sources. Due to the difficulty in culturing and sampling deep heat-loving bacteria, thermophiles, little was known of their chemistry. As more is learned of bacterial chemistry, more biomarkers seem likely to be due to bacterial action. Hopanoids, called the 'most abundant natural products on Earth', were believed to be indicators of oil derived from ferns and lichens but are now known to be created by many bacteria, including archaea. Sterane was thought to have come from processes involving surface deposits but is now known to be produced by several prokaryotes including methanotrophic proteobacteria.

Deep hot carbon sources

Carbonate lava

Carbonatites are intrusive carbonate-mineral-rich igneous rocks. Although they are deposits of carbon from an igneous source, the geology behind their creation is not understood.

Hydrothermal vents

Hydrothermal vents expel mineral-rich geothermally heated water.

* Carbon dioxide abiogenically produced from magma: As magma outgasses helium and carbon dioxide at depths less than 60 km, there should be deep carbon fluids present in areas such as oceanic ridges where the magma is able to heat surface waters.

* Microbes can create methane: Extremophile methanogens such as Methanopyrus can convert CO2 to methane.

* Methane can also be created chemically: Iron in rock can release hydrogen from water, then carbon dioxide can combine with the hydrogen to produce methane and water. University of Minnesota researchers discovered that rocks rich in chromium minerals can encourage chemical methane production, while also producing the more complex hydrocarbons ethane and propane.

* Methane and carbon dioxide may be dissolved in water which enters hydrothermal vent systems.

* Hydrothermal vents might release methane and carbon from deposits of biological origin, although this is less likely in vents at spreading oceanic ridges.

Biomarkers

Chemicals of biological origin have been found in many geologic hydrocarbon deposits. These biomarkers were believed to be from known surface sources. Due to the difficulty in culturing and sampling deep heat-loving bacteria, thermophiles, little was known of their chemistry. As more is learned of bacterial chemistry, more biomarkers seem likely to be due to bacterial action. Hopanoids, called the 'most abundant natural products on Earth', were believed to be indicators of oil derived from ferns and lichens but are now known to be created by many bacteria, including archaea. Sterane was thought to have come from processes involving surface deposits but is now known to be produced by several prokaryotes including methanotrophic proteobacteria.

It has been argued that the abiogenic theory does not explain the detection of various biomarkers in petroleum. Microbial consumption does not yet explain some trace chemicals found in deposits. Materials which suggest certain biological processes include tetracyclic diterpane and oleanane. Although extremophile microorganisms exist deep underground and some metabolize carbon, some of these biomarkers are only known so far to be created in surface plants. This evidence is consistent with the biogenic hypothesis, although it might be true that these hydrocarbons have merely been in contact with ancient plant residues. There also is evidence that low-temperature relatives of hyperthermophiles are widespread, so it is also possible for biological deposits to have been altered by low-temperature bacteria which are similar to deeper heat-loving relatives.

Sign In

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Harzburgite

Eclogite

Harzburgite

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation