Oil is NOT a fossil fuel...

[Moontanman]

Abeodic Theory, or that oil forms in the earths core, seeping up to the surface over time, into the earths thin crust where for the most part is trapped in rock, salt or other natural shells....may or may not be Mr. Golds idea in total.

 

certainly many along the line of usage have wondered just how much life must have existed to create the poundage of what we have used, believe still is available or what may be found. add to this all life, certainly would not just turn to oil and we have no current reason to think any thing in the past million years or so has turned to crude oil.

 

there are other factors which give cause to questioning all, so called fossil fuels as well, with todays technology. the earths crust is about 40-60 miles deep (as i recall) and the deepest life remains have been found are about three miles deep. oil however has been found near six miles deep. Jack-2, the newest found deep gulf also is very deep and takes explaining to have been from fossil in making. many oil field abandoned, in many places around the world, have been revisited and oils found, in some cases near to the original thought total reserves. there is a current rush to explore for and test for oils in places not previously thought life ever existed, unless we are way off in platonic shift in theory. the Arctic and Antarctic or in those areas a couple.

 

i do believe or at least wonder if life of sorts does form during or very shortly after formations of a planet. we have records of micro-life dating back 3.6 billion years which could be descendants from this period. but i would rather think the oil is more like cooled lava or a final product produced from natural heat/pressure process on nature core elements, then seeps up to the service by natural pressure means.

 

moon, if you think Tormod was rude to you, wait till he/she responds to this post. i rarely get into abeodic principles because it does go against the trend, goes against peak oil or peak that and is controversial. it also leads into global warming or other controversial topics. much is my pure opinion and only my understanding of what i also have read.

I appreciate your comments on this subject, I think Gold does give credit to other researchers in his book as well. He seems to think the Deep hot biosphere extends far below the few miles of the earth crust but I am not sure since I don't have his book at hand to check. If I remember correctly he doesn't think oil is actually made by biology but it shows that biology does extend far below what we currently think and that oil isn't the result of surface biology. He also states that his theory doesn't give us a free ticket to use oil since we use it much faster than it is being produced.

 

I could care less about how he replies to me, I never pretended to be a geologist. I simply suggested where more information could be found on the subject. For him to suggest that I am somehow slack because I don't want to spoon feed him the information he wants is rude. I have never required or had anyone spoon feed me information in my life. I've had to research and read everything I could find on the subjects that interest me. In the subjects that I can I try to find the answers by direct experiments but so far I have mostly done that with various marine biology problems. I've found that information is much more rewarding when you have to research the subjects you are interested in yourself. if he wasn't interested in finding out his own information he shouldn't have even been commenting on the subject. Yes I misspell but I never lie or misrepresent some else's work. For me to have pretended to know the details of Gold's work without even having his book in my hands is unthinkable to me. I don't pretend to be a scientist, it would be wrong for me to do so and insulting to real scientists. I do have a question about Gold's or anyone else's theory that oil comes up from the mantle because it was deposited cold in the earths formation. How does the formation of the moon square with the cold start of the earth. Most computer models I have read about suggest the entire earth was molten after the collision that produced the moon. This would seem to contradict the cold slow heat of the earth that produces the hydrocarbons we see today. But as I have said I am not a geologist so my question is just that a question.

 

Michael

[silverslith]

In an important mechanism for atmospheric carbon recycling through the long term volcanic carbon cycle, oceanic microorganisms swim hundred of meters upwards to meet the sun in the morning and photosythesis the CO2 in surface water. Towards dusk they swim back down, ending up hundreds of metres deep at midnight. Some die and sink to the ocean floor where the diatom ooze becomes limestone and other carbon containing rocks.

This is then subducted into the molten mantle under the continental shelves. Some of the carbon becomes methane hydrate stores along the edges of the continental shelves. some becomes the deep oil deposits mentioned through percolation upwards of methane via catalytic, high temp and pressure processes. Most is melted and returns to the surface in volcanism. There may be a little carbon coming up from below, deep in the mantle. I doubt it is much and If it were then you'd have to say its being produced as fission fragments from the not widely accepted core breeder reactor scenario.

Thats how I see it anyway.:shrug:

[Moontanman]

In an important mechanism for atmospheric carbon recycling through the long term volcanic carbon cycle, oceanic microorganisms swim hundred of meters upwards to meet the sun in the morning and photosythesis the CO2 in surface water. Towards dusk they swim back down, ending up hundreds of metres deep at midnight. Some die and sink to the ocean floor where the diatom ooze becomes limestone and other carbon containing rocks.

This is then subducted into the molten mantle under the continental shelves. Some of the carbon becomes methane hydrate stores along the edges of the continental shelves. some becomes the deep oil deposits mentioned through percolation upwards of methane via catalytic, high temp and pressure processes. Most is melted and returns to the surface in volcanism. There may be a little carbon coming up from below, deep in the mantle. I doubt it is much and If it were then you'd have to say its being produced as fission fragments from the not widely accepted core breeder reactor scenario.

Thats how I see it anyway.:phones:

 

Hmm, i am really uncomfortable argueing with some elses ideas and information but if i remember correctly Gold has pretty much proved that carbon sequestered this way doesn't end up as oil but more likely CO2. also oil is found at depths that carbon taken down by subduction doesn't even come close to reaching. Also the amount of hydrocarbons coming up from great depths is very significant, but as he is dead and cannot defend his theories any more, and I am not quallified to defend or question his theories, I think I'll look up more recent research on this subject to see what is being said now.

 

Michael

[silverslith]

Hmm, i am really uncomfortable argueing with some elses ideas and information but if i remember correctly Gold has pretty much proved that carbon sequestered this way doesn't end up as oil but more likely CO2. also oil is found at depths that carbon taken down by subduction doesn't even come close to reaching. Also the amount of hydrocarbons coming up from great depths is very significant, but as he is dead and cannot defend his theories any more, and I am not quallified to defend or question his theories, I think I'll look up more recent research on this subject to see what is being said now.

 

Michael

 

oh come on man:doh: oil has not been found in the molten mantle where the plates are subducted to. aluminosilicates catalyse the polymerisation of long chain and even the spherical carbon polymers to be found in oil. Its how life began.

[Tormod]

it sounds to me like you are rude!

 

moon, if you think Tormod was rude to you, wait till he/she responds to this post.

 

I could care less about how he replies to me, I never pretended to be a geologist. I simply suggested where more information could be found on the subject. For him to suggest that I am somehow slack because I don't want to spoon feed him the information he wants is rude. I have never required or had anyone spoon feed me information in my life.

 

A lot of fuzz about nothing. You two sound like I have poked you in the face with a hot iron rod.

 

May I remind you that this is a discussion forum, and a science forum at that, which means that

 

1) You need to be able to discuss theories you post about

2) You need to discuss other people's theories (or else we would have very little to talk about)

 

No reason to yell at me.

[CraigD]

… also oil is found at depths that carbon taken down by subduction doesn't even come close to reaching.

As a fellow seeker-of-information-who-lacks-expert-knowledge-of-the-subject, I’m skeptical of this claim, for several reasons:

• Current geophysical subduction models predict, and data from Seismic tomography supports, that former ocean floor material has been tectonically pushed and downwelled to depths around 700000 m. By comparison, the oceanic crust is typically between 5000 and 10000 m thick, the continental crust 20000 to 70000 m. The ocean floor is known to contain large quantities of carbon at depths from 0 to 500 m. (Source: Methane clathrate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Although subducted crust is believed to undergo dramatic changes in physical state, carbon remains carbon, so there’s strong reason to believe that carbon once found on or above the Earth’s surface is now at every depth in the mantle which extends to a depth of nearly 3000000 m (nearly 50% of the Earth’s radius of nearly 6400000 m).
  
• Other than density measurements via the above mentioned seismic tomography, I don’t believe anything has been physically “found” at a depth greater than about 12000 m (reached in 1992 by the Kola Superdeep Borehole)
  

Also the amount of hydrocarbons coming up from great depths is very significant …

Though one finds expert opinions both strongly supporting and strongly rejecting the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis, I believe, given a lack of sufficiently detailed data about the Earth’s fine structure and dynamics, the amount of petroleum that is due to compressed sediments vs. upwelling hydrocarbons remains an open question. Though an interesting scientific question, it appears to be somewhat irrelevant to long-term energy policy-making. There’s consensus from all but a few incredible, fringe sources that, regardless of their source, oil reserves are being depleted far more rapidly than they are being replaced, and are not a viable long-term source of energy.

 

Many supporter of the abiogenic hypothesis appear to be motivated by a desire to cast doubt on this consensus in an effort to discourage a planned transition from reliance on hydrocarbon fuels to alternatives known to be available far into the future, such as various forms of solar power. So, much as I am wary to discussing bioinformatics with proponents of intelligent design, I am wary of discussing geology with proponents of abiogenic oil. I suspect the motive and goals of some such proponents are irrational, not scientific.

I think I'll look up more recent research on this subject to see what is being said now.

An applause-worthy thought. :hyper: Having questions, researching them, and sharing your findings is what hypography is all about.

[Moontanman]

A lot of fuzz about nothing. You two sound like I have poked you in the face with a hot iron rod.

 

May I remind you that this is a discussion forum, and a science forum at that, which means that

 

1) You need to be able to discuss theories you post about

2) You need to discuss other people's theories (or else we would have very little to talk about)

 

No reason to yell at me.

 

I don't mind talking about them but as I said it had been so long since a read his book I didn't think it was a good idea for me to try and explain it. I have an overwelming desire to be accurate. Would you want comeone to talk about an idea of yours and not be acurate? don't worry, i can take anything anyone on this list can dish out. i stopped worring about that when I was 12, 40 years later I don't think i am going to get sensitive any time soon.

the good news is I found the book and I am reading it tonight and should be able to be more up front with the info by late tonight. There was a lot of stuff that had slipped my mind after all. His theory seems even stronger now that I am almost finished with his book. too bad he is dead.

 

Michael

[Moontanman]

oh come on man:doh: oil has not been found in the molten mantle where the plates are subducted to. aluminosilicates catalyse the polymerisation of long chain and even the spherical carbon polymers to be found in oil. Its how life began.

 

No one has said oil is found in the molten mantle. what is being said is that the hydrocarbons where present when the earth formed from what is known as carbonaceous conderites. At depth of about 200 to 300 kilometers this stuff is not only very hot but also very high pressurized. the pressure is high enough to keep it from breaking down. as it slowly percolates up through the crust micro organisms that live down around 50 kilometers use this stuff as food. that is how the biological markers presnet in oil get there. not from the degrading of surface life.

the deep hot biosphere is thought to be much bigger by weight than the surface biosphere. when these hydrocarbons are acted on by microrganisms they slowly take away the hydrogen and replace it with other atoms like oxygen, sulfer, and nitrogen. the closer to the surface this stuff is the less hydrogen it has. coal is the last step in the process that starts out as anything from methane to highly hydrogenated hydrocarbons. many oil wells have a stratified composition, with methane and light oils on the bottom and heavy oils at the top covered by coal. Methane eating bacteria are mostly responsible for the striping of hydrogen from the hydrocarbons percolating up from deeper areas. the microorganisms are thought to stop some where around the level where the temps are from 150 degree centigrade to about 300 degrees centigrade. the pressure at these depths allows water to remain a working fluid instead of becoming steam.

 

Michael

[Moontanman]

. Ok you guys, you got me started on this thread when all I really wanted to do was talk about space ships and extraterrestrial life, so here goes nothing. to me the most compelling part of Thomas gold's deep hot biosphere, wait, crap my computer is crapping out on me, anyone got a monitor they aren't using? I can hardly read what I am typing so please forgive any really bad spelling errors. Ok, the most compelling part is the deep carbon fluids that are below any possible life as we know it. Gold postulates that when the earth was formed it was formed in great deal by carbonaceous chondrites which have a high percentage of carbon in the form of more or less solid hydrocarbons. as the earth heated up these hydrocarbons became fluid due to the heat and pressure. At some point they probably degraded into carbon and hydrogen. but at just the right depth you have methane under so much pressure it acts as a fluid instead of as a gas as we know it. a little further up and you start to have more complex hydrocarbons such propane, ethane, and octane. these fluids rise up as any light materials have to do when surrounded by denser and hotter materials. As they rise up they encounter a level where heat hyperextremophile organisms begin to metabolize the oils that are coming up through the porous rocks. This is one sticking point to most people who cannot imagine that there are pores in rock that is that hot and under that much pressure but drills have found this to be true. Also anywhere you drill if you drill deep enough you find oils in the pores instead of water. Only in certain areas does this oil concentrate to exploitable amounts. This oil has the ability to dissolve many metals into organometalic hydrocarbons. When organisms act on this oil they leave behind metal deposits and they are responsible for many of the deposits of lead, mercury, zinc, silver, gold, and other metals that are mined. No other process can explain these metal deposits. Miners used to follow what they called a coal leader to find gold and other precious metals. As the oil moved to the surface and was acted on by microbes the metals fell out of solution and as the hydrocarbon moved along it lost all it's hydrogen to become a vein of carbon. Oil often contains such organometalic compounds. Many oil fields have been found to be refilling, "slowly" is the key word here. In no way does Gold think that oil supplies in the amounts we use to be inexhaustible. They fill up far to slowly to help us with the oil shortage but they do fill up. All these carbonaceous fluids are being used by microbes that fix oxygen from things like metal oxides, sulfur oxides and other loosely oxidized chemicals. . several other key processes have to explained at this point. Under the pressures we are talking about 40 bar and up, many molecules are stable that never occur at the surface. He thinks that in this realm is where life started. Chemosynthesis is a much easier way to obtain energy than photosynthesis but it is the precursor to photosynthesis. The reactions are similar. It is also clear that much carbon exists deep in the earth. That is why we have diamonds. Diamonds are the stable form of carbon at great depths. At surface pressures diamonds are not stable and will degrade into graphite given enough time. Any way he gives many other reasons we should think that deep in the earth there is lots of carbon and carbon compounds. He even goes so far as to say that quartz veins that contain metals such as gold are an indication that below the hydrocarbon oils there are silicon oils that exist at even higher pressures and temps. These silicon oils also dissolve metals and when the oils are forced to the surface they quickly degrade into silicon dioxide "quartz" veins and leave behind the burden of metals they have dissolved. He eve postulates that such great pressures and temps there might be silicon life but that is completely hypothetical since we never get the chance to see the silicon oils because they cannot exist anywhere but deep inside the earth. He even states there may be a zone where carbon and silicon oils mix. He also shows that even when you drill into igneous rock where there are no sediments you still find small amounts of hydrocarbons. Even coal can be shown to be the result of the degradation of methane by bacteria. They take away the hydrogen and leave coal. I always thought coal had to fossilized trees and such but in some areas coal seems are found with the fossils of tree trunks that go through the coal and the fossils are made of either silica or carbonates above and below the coal seem. The same tree could not have been fossilized two or three different ways at the same place. He thinks that hydrocarbon fluids, and fluids is the key word here, travel up through the ground and replace living tissue much the same way silica or limestone does. So the fossils in coal are there not because the coal was formed by them but the coal formed the fossils. He also goes on to state that gasses such as helium three are found in oil and no natural process can account for helium being associated with oil unless the oil dissolved it as it came up from deep in the earth.

 

Michael

[Michaelangelica]

I am not sure what this thread is about anymore

But here is my :phones: worth

1)Oil from McDonald's

Earthbeat:: 29 November  2003  - Biodiesel

two years old not 200,000.

 

2) I heard a professor of geology (?) from Adelaide university being interviewed by Phillip Adams on ABC radio late one night.

He has written a book Published by Adelaide academic press (?) which says that oil is not a fossil fuel

I will have another look for his book.

I have had no luck finding a transcript from the ABC

Anyone here have a friend at the ABC?

[silverslith]

Interesting ideas mike. Thanks for revising for us. Hope your computer blues are on the mend.

We had a synthetic petrol plant in nz that turned methanol to long alkanes using an aluminosilicate catalyst and high heat and pressure. Maybe what was really happening is some of those deep extremophiles invaded it as a surface colony. I was under the impression most of them got their energy from sulphur. I'm sure its a very complex ecology though. Many of them have invaded our local hotsprings. microorganisms have been fingered for producing tiny uranium pearls recently. I hope we don't have to worry about proliferation. On the other hand we could solve a lot of problems by telling george and giving him a shovel.:) The intelligence is accurate! honest!

One thing Craig. I'm not so sure much subducted carbon and silica ends up mixing deep in the mantle. Its light, full of water and melts easily. Its lighter than the crustal rocks and formes plumes and magma chambers as it rises due to this density difference. Deep volcanic sources produce heavier basalt lava.

[Moontanman]

I am not sure what this thread is about anymore

But here is my :) worth

1)Oil from McDonald's

Earthbeat:: 29 November* 2003* - Biodiesel

two years old not 200,000.

 

2) I heard a professor of geology (?) from Adelaide university being interviewed by Phillip Adams on ABC radio late one night.

He has written a book Published by Adelaide academic press (?) which says that oil is not a fossil fuel

I will have another look for his book.

I have had no luck finding a transcript from the ABC

Anyone here have a friend at the ABC?

 

Well, it has nothing to do with biodiesel for sure but I think biodiesel is a great way to go but i don't think there is enough oil made from plants to really replace regular diesel on anything like a camparitive cost basis. it's cheap now because so few people are using it. as the demand rises the price will go up to way beyound regular diesel because there is so little biodiesel and so much regular diesel.

 

Michael

[ck27]

Someone probably pointed this out already but even if oil replenishes itself overtime it obviously is not replenishing itself faster than we are consuming it.

[Wabdatl]

I want to thank the post that referenced Dr. Gold's work. I read the article and will read his book and so thank you again.

 

Consider these questions about oil?

 

Where does it occur both at what depth and along what geologic structures?

 

If oil is from the remains of some former age why is it only found in some areas when life on the planet at that time must have been commonplace?

 

Has anyone ever made or manufactured oil from organic material? I know the germans produced it from coal but it stands to reason that if oil has at its base some organic substance than you should be able to duplicate its creation much like diamonds are now created.

 

How much oil exists?

 

What is it about Saudi Arabia geologically (in support of the earth/oil producing theory) or archeologically (in opposition to the theory) that makes it such a rich oil bearing/producing site?

 

Estimate the amount of life necessary at the time that oil creation started to yield the oil we have found thus far.

 

What sort of life is it that is claimed to produce oil? Is it plant matter or animal matter or both?

 

What event caused the creation of oil? Was there a worldwide cataclysm or is it just the covering of organic material with sediment that causes oil to be created?

 

How is it oil is found beneath the ocean floor? Were there great lifeforms, either animal or plant , that caused the creation of oil there?

 

How does the theory of oil creation from former life coexist with the movement and replacement of the landmasses. How long must oil 'cook' in order for it to be 'ready'?

 

Also, I don't think that believing oil is created by the earth means that one is against the creation of alternative fuel sources. It;s just an inquiry a question. And in a land known for freedom of speech shouldn't we be allowed these questions?

[Michaelangelica]

Here is a guy who may agree with the proposition of this thread

He also thinks water comes from UNDER the ground rather than seeping down from the top.

Nor does he believe in man-made climate change.

Unfortunately a transcript of the radio interview is not available

(You could write and ask)

You may be able to track down his self published book.

 

He is either a genius or a raving lunatic.

A dissident view of water and warming

 

'I'm not a sceptic, I'm an angry professor!' Lance Endersbee claims the world water crisis has been underplayed and global warming overplayed, as a result of the pressures in science to conform.

 

Endersbee's main focus is on the state of the world's groundwater, the rapid consumption of which has put the world on the edge of a little understood catastrophe, he says, because contrary to popular belief groundwater reserves are not replenished from the surface.

 

Guests

 

Lance Endersbee

Emeritus Professor; former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monash University.

 

Publications

Title: A Voyage of discovery: An earthshaking revelation of what is happening to our planet

Author: Professor Lance Endersbee

Publisher: Self published, 2005 (via Monash University Bookshop at Monash University)

Presenter

Phillip Adams

Story Researcher and Producer

 

Chris Bullock

 

Phillip AdamsMon-Thur 10pm

repeated 4pm the following day (6pm WA)

 

Presented by

Phillip Adams

 

Late Night Live | Radio National | Programs A-Z

 

© 2007 ABC | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use

[Michaelangelica]

Science News

Share Blog Cite

Print Email Bookmark

New Theory Predicts Location Of Oil And Gas Reserves

 

ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2007) — Researchers in Stavanger, Norway, have developed a theory which can be important for future oil and gas exploration.

 

The Golden Zone is the name of a an underground zone where temperatures range between 60 and 120 C.

The name refers to a new discovery that 90 per cent of the world's oil and gas reserves are to be found just there

New Theory Predicts Location Of Oil And Gas Reserves

[Zohaar818]

The solution to the "oil crisis" can be viewed by clicking the links below. I think you will find them fascinating. And mercifully brief!

 

Meanwhile, for all those who believe that petroleum comes from dinosaurs and rotting plant life of a prehistoric age..well.isn't it nice that they all had the decency to die and decay at a specific geological locations at relatively accessible, temperature controlled depths under the earth. I mean..what are the odds....

 

Video on Demand | wkyc.com

 

water can burn Zideo (Met jouw video verdien je geld op Zideo)