"Oil is NOT a fossil fuel"

Status
Not open for further replies.
tempest...are oil and gas supplies infinite in your view ?

What other sources of STORED energy are there in significant quantities ?

Does it make sense to use 5 times as much (finite) fossil energy to produce food as makes it to the table ?
 
One of the problem in determining the demand and supply of a monopoly products like oil (they are monopoly whether you like it or not, when OPEC exists for this reason), is that you can never have a simple way to determine price and production/reserve of this resource.

Like Tempest said, we have been predicting this for a while, and people probably predict that it is going to run out faster now that China and India uses more of it, but also people may spend more money in exploring and use it more efficiently (future fuel economy standard in China is going to be much higher than in US).

One thing for sure is that way before we run out, most of us will be priced out of using it, and find alternatives (like bio/algae/soy/corn/sugar cane/swamp gas/electric car/coal to liquid/etc).

Just make sure it doesn't happen before you retire your SUV, or buy a new car making sure that you can afford a spike in future fuel cost.

Hopefully it won't happen before we get much better fuel economy.
 
I do not share this optimism. Not a bit. I guess if you converted 99% of the senseless consumer economy into energy production... But then we run into other complications. We don't need all the people we currently have to perform the tasks needed to maintain the people that we currently have.

The main problem is the exponential curve(s). While some things will occur at blinding speed (demand, etc.) the ability to adapt is still 100% based in real time toil and resources ..currency ..labor.

That is, you can have demand for energy upramp 300% in the next year, but you're not going to be able to put up nukes, wind farms ..reinsulate ..refit/convert the heating systems ..produce the cars ..etc..etc ..in that amount of time.
 
Have you figured out what "reserves" actually means? Have you learned to to actually research something instead of stopping when you read what you want to hear? More reserves doesn't mean more oil has been created. If you thought you have $1.25 in change in your pocket, and upon looking closer, discover that you actually have $1.37, did the extra coin just spontaneously appear?

The White Tiger Oilfield in Vietnam contains oil deposits in FRACTURED granitic rock. This is surrounded and overlain by sedimentary lacustrine shale.
The oil from this field has been analyzed and found to originate from lacustrine sediments; algae and plants.
Probably migrated laterally into the fractured igneous rock.

"there are hydrocarbons on other planets, even in deep space. Why shouldn’t we expect to find primordial hydrocarbons on Earth?

This is a question whose answer is only partly understood, and it is a complicated one. The planets known to have primordial hydrocarbons (mostly in the form of methane, the simplest hydrocarbon) lie in the further reaches of the solar system; there is little evidence of primordial hydrocarbons on the rocky inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). On the latter, possibly the hydrocarbons either volatized and escaped into space early in the history of the solar system, or—as Gold theorizes—they migrated to the inner depths. (Note: very recent evidence of methane in the atmosphere of Mars is being viewed as evidence of biological activity, probably in the distant past. (1)) There is indeed evidence for deep methane on Earth: it vents from the mid-oceanic ridges, presumably arising from the mantle, though the amount vented is relatively small—less than the amount emitted annually in cow farts (incidentally, there are persuasive biotic explanations for the origin of this vented methane).

A new study by the US Department of Energy and Lawrence Livermore Lab suggests that there may be huge methane deposits in Earth’s mantle, 60 to 120 miles deep. (2) But today oil companies are capable of drilling only as deep as six miles, and this in sedimentary rock; in igneous and metamorphic rock, drill bits have so far penetrated only two miles. (3) In any attempt to drill to a depth remotely approaching the mantle, well casings would be thoroughly crushed and melted by the pressures and temperatures encountered along the way. Moreover, the DOE study attributes the methane deposits it hypothesizes to an origin different from the one Gold described.

More to the point, Gold also claimed the existence of liquid hydrocarbons—oil—at great depths. But there is a problem with this: the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds. What remains after these molecular bonds are severed is methane, whose molecule contains only a single carbon atom. For petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil “window” that exists from roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only. The rare exceptions serve to prove the rule: they are invariably associated with strata that are rapidly (in geological terms) migrating upward or downward. (4)

The conventional theory of petroleum formation connects oil with the process of sedimentation. And, indeed, nearly all of the oil that has been discovered over the past century-and-a-half is associated with sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, it isn’t difficult to find rocks that once existed at great depths where, according the theories of Gold and the Russians, conditions should have been perfect for abiotic oil formation or the accumulation of primordial petroleum—but such rocks typically contain no traces of hydrocarbons. In the very rare instances where small amounts of hydrocarbons are seen in igneous or metamorphic rocks, the latter are invariably found near hydrocarbon-bearing sedimentary rocks, and the hydrocarbons in both types of rock contain identical biomarkers (more on that subject below); the simplest explanation in those cases is that the hydrocarbons migrated from the sedimentary rocks to the igneous-metamorphic rocks."

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2423
 
I believe water is made from dead plants and animals. Because I found a dead fish in the lake. And plants and animals are composed of water. /sarcasm

That's the entire logic behind oil "is from dead plants and animals" that and the Sinclair Gas Station Signs and the Chevron Commmericals in the 80s with animated dinosaurs being sucked into your gas tank (or a Tiger in your tank).

Why then is no oil found among fossils? Why is it normally found near underground salt pillars? Sedimentary rock acts like a sponge - its porous, allowing oil from below to seep upward because the oil and sedimentary rock are "lighter" than surrounding rock. And fossils are mostly associated with sedimentary rock for the same reason - dead animals buried suddenly in water/dirt - not allowed to rot away on the surface.

Oil has been made in a lab. From the article:
Quote:
A team consisting of Russian scientists and Dr J. F. Kenney, of Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, USA, have actually built a reactor vessel and proven that oil is produced from calcium carbonate and iron oxide, as detailed on the Gas Resources website.


Hydrocarbons on Titan? YES! There's even water on the sun!
 
Oil is a hydrocarbon, yet all hydrocarbons are not oil.
Maybe go take some geology classes?
Any first-year geology student knows that oil is not from dinosaur fossils, but from algae and plankton. If some amount of oil is produced abiotically, it's not a commercially significant amount.

By the way, where does calcium carbonate originate?
 
Originally Posted By: MarkC

Any first-year geology student knows that oil is not from dinosaur fossils, but from algae and plankton. If some amount of oil is produced abiotically, it's not a commercially significant amount.

Laughable.
How many first-year geology students have produced oil from algae and plankton? Biodiesel, yes. Not petroleum. Their told what to believe. It's a theory based on circumstantial evidence.

How many experiments have turned algae into petroleum? LOL!

Quote:
By the way, where does calcium carbonate originate?
Why chickens, of course! And calcium carbonate has been found on mars. And there's a lot of sealife on Mars.

Why is Chevron selling diamondoids from petroleum ?


Diamondoid: Next big thing in nanotechnology?

www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2546

Quote:
However, diamondoids are really the antithesis of chemical fossils, having structures that are distinctly non-biological, and with properties of great interest to materials scientists.

I guess first-year geology students aren't taught about abiotic markers in crude oil. LOL!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Augustus

Originally Posted By: MarkC

Any first-year geology student knows that oil is not from dinosaur fossils, but from algae and plankton. If some amount of oil is produced abiotically, it's not a commercially significant amount.

Laughable.
How many first-year geology students have produced oil from algae and plankton? Biodiesel, yes. Not petroleum. Their told what to believe. It's a theory based on circumstantial evidence.

How many experiments have turned algae into petroleum? LOL!



dude... pull your head in... it is not made from fresh algae and plankton... LOL.

it takes millions of years for biogenic sediment to form from these. then they are covered. through folding faulting, and overburden, temperature and pressure, these biogenic sediments form hydrocarbons. then, they need to be trapped somehwere for us to find and extract them.

please educate yourself... yoou're free to believe whatever drivel you want though.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting to me how this debate illustrates two traditionally opposed mindsets: On one side are the ardent pessimists repeatedly driving home the "sooner or later" doom and gloom statistical illusion on why things certainly must go wrong, based on conjecture and circumstance. Ironically On the other hand, the optimists stand accused of "magic" in their representation, rooted in empirical observation stating facts, citing references, etc.

Both sides exhorting the other to "educate themselevs."
35.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Augustus

How many first-year geology students have produced oil from algae and plankton? Biodiesel, yes. Not petroleum. Their told what to believe. It's a theory based on circumstantial evidence.


They could take those biological materials to a thermal deppolymerisation plant, expose them to tremendous heat and pressure, and see the oil (not biodiesel) come out the spigot.
 
Originally Posted By: Nadir
It is interesting to me how this debate illustrates two traditionally opposed mindsets: On one side are the ardent pessimists repeatedly driving home the "sooner or later" doom and gloom statistical illusion on why things certainly must go wrong, based on conjecture and circumstance. Ironically On the other hand, the optimists stand accused of "magic" in their representation, rooted in empirical observation stating facts, citing references, etc.

Both sides exhorting the other to "educate themselevs."
35.gif


What's telling is that those who actually know a thing or two about geology can see through the fecal matter thrown about by those who don't.
 
I'm waiting to see how you're going to claim that higher diamondoids from what Chevron's own scientists say are fossil fuel, prove that oil is abiotic in origin.
And I'd like to see a map showing calcium carbonate deposits on Mars. (And if you really don't know the sources of Calcium carbonate, why not just say so?
 
I suggest reading this article thoroughly and closely.

http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm

Maybe pay attention to these parts:

"in fact universities and oil companies are staffed with thousands of "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men [and women!] knowledgeable of thermodynamics" who not only subscribe to the biogenic theory, but use it every day as the basis for successful oil exploration. And laboratory experiments have shown repeatedly that petroleum is in fact produced from organic matter under the conditions to which it is assumed to have been subjected over geological time. The situation is actually the reverse of the one Kenny implies: most geologists assume that the Russian abiotic oil hypothesis, which dates to the era prior to the advent of modern plate tectonics theory, is an anachronism. Tectonic movements are now known to be able to radically reshuffle rock strata, leaving younger sedimentary oil- or gas-bearing rock beneath basement rock, leading in some cases to the appearance that oil has its source in Precambrian crystalline basement, when this is not actually the case."

"Geologists trace the source of the carbon in hydrocarbons through analysis of its isotopic balance. Natural carbon is nearly all isotope 12, with 1.11 percent being isotope 13. Organic material, however, usually contains less C-13, because photosynthesis in plants preferentially selects C-12 over C-13. Oil and natural gas typically show a C-12 to C-13 ratio similar to that of the biological materials from which they are assumed to have originated. The C-12 to C-13 ratio is a generally observed property of petroleum and is predicted by the biotic theory; it is not merely an occasional aberration. (13)

In addition, oil typically contains biomarkers - porphyrins, isoprenoids, pristane, phytane, cholestane, terpines, and clorins - which are related to biochemicals such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin. The chemical fingerprint of oil assumed to have been formed from, for example, algae is different from that of oil formed from plankton. Thus geochemists can (and routinely do) use biomarkers to trace oil samples to specific source rocks.

Abiotic theorists hypothesize that oil picks up its chemical biomarkers through contamination from bacteria living deep in the Earth's crust (Gold's "deep, hot biosphere") or from other buried bio-remnants. However, the observed correspondences between biomarkers and source materials are not haphazard, but instead systematic and predictable on the basis of the biotic theory. For example, biomarkers in source rock can be linked with the depositional environment; that is, source rocks with biomarkers characteristic of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, while petroleum biomarkers associated with marine organisms are found only in marine sediments."

"There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin. Science is an ongoing search for truth, and theories are continually being altered or scrapped as new evidence appears. However, the assertion that all oil is abiotic requires extraordinary support, because it must overcome abundant evidence, already cited, to tie specific oil accumulations to specific biological origins through a chain of well-understood processes that have been demonstrated, in principle, under laboratory conditions."
 
Originally Posted By: Nadir
It is interesting to me how this debate illustrates two traditionally opposed mindsets: On one side are the ardent pessimists repeatedly driving home the "sooner or later" doom and gloom statistical illusion on why things certainly must go wrong, based on conjecture and circumstance. Ironically On the other hand, the optimists stand accused of "magic" in their representation, rooted in empirical observation stating facts, citing references, etc.

Both sides exhorting the other to "educate themselevs."
35.gif



In "fairness", your own evaluation is devoid of pondering both sides of the debate. Anyone who wishes to determine some "sensible truth" has to thoroughly weight both sides of any topic (if there are ONLY two sides) and then support or reject the given points of one, the other, or some of both. Typical debate format is to find ONE flaw in the others argument and use that to discredit the entire presentation. The technique in besting that sophomoric approach is to concede to the obvious and move on to explain why you don't grant it the merit that the opposition does and why your alternative view is more accurate/appropriate/acceptable/favorable.

Your wording suggests that you don't consider the potential outcomes that have substantial evidence of support.


Hey, I don't want what I suspect is going to be. Not on your life. I do see some incredible challenges and lots of collateral damage in how this is going to flesh out in reality.
 
The only "ponderance" I attribute to this debate is wondering who will profit from controlling the petroleum supply in either perception or reality.

I find it more telling to observe how the sides line up against each other, rather than the topic itself.
 
The thing I object to isn't the idea that some oil may be abiotic in origin, but the original title of the thread and the OP's attitude that because a few people believe something that it discredits what the overwhelming evidence points to and the majority of those who actually know something about the subject consider fact.
These are the same type of arguments you here from people of a certain religious bent in regards to ages of certain things, etc. Lots of smoke, but no fire.

At the end of the day, oil, whether abiotic or biogenic, is being consumed faster than it's being replenished, discovered or produced.
 
Quote:
More reserves doesn't mean more oil has been created.

Yeah, that's kinda' why they need exploration to find more of the stuff.
06.gif
smirk2.gif
And why they call it proven reserves.

Good stuff you are posting here, though. I was trying to find lowest depth that organic matter has been found. 18000Ft is about the lowest I could find, but they didn't have much info.

Do you have info for a lower depth?
 
Quote:
tempest...are oil and gas supplies infinite in your view ?

No, and I have stated as much.

Quote:
Does it make sense to use 5 times as much (finite) fossil energy to produce food as makes it to the table ?

What is the source for that number?

And what alternative do you propose?
 
Already posted that source before...multiple times.

Alternative ?

Why on Earth would you plant a field of grain, fertilise and water it, and feed it to cattle for meat and milk ?

When cattle turn grass (which we can't eat) into meat and dairy (which we can)...and much more energy efficiently.
 
Quote:
Why on Earth would you plant a field of grain, fertilise and water it, and feed it to cattle for meat and milk ?

Because that feed is made cheap by outside "help".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom