Fossil fuels are a small percentage of oil retrieved. Should we change the name?
Fossil fuel an antiquated term?
- Thread starter 555
- Start date
- Status
I'll concede that crude oil is not 100% from fossils. That being said, it is semantics, no need to be overly technical IMO, most everyone knows what it means.
What oil retrieved is not a fossil fuel? I've been in the oil industry for almost twenty years and can't think of an example. Of course, you might have a different definition of fossil fuel than I do. I'd be interested to read your thoughts.
noun, Energy.
1. any combustible organic material, as oil, coal, or natural gas, derived from the remains of former life.
The fossil part basically means that if it could form a fossil, it could form a fossil fuel. That being said, the geological constraints required to form fossils and fuels are pretty much mutually exclusive. If the thing fossilized, it is unlikely to have contributed its carbon and hydrogen molecules to fuel. Note that I am not saying that fossil bearing formations can't also serve as hydrocarbon sources.
noun, Energy.
1. any combustible organic material, as oil, coal, or natural gas, derived from the remains of former life.
The fossil part basically means that if it could form a fossil, it could form a fossil fuel. That being said, the geological constraints required to form fossils and fuels are pretty much mutually exclusive. If the thing fossilized, it is unlikely to have contributed its carbon and hydrogen molecules to fuel. Note that I am not saying that fossil bearing formations can't also serve as hydrocarbon sources.
Last edited:
People say lots lots of things that represent a misstatement of the facts and are not challenged. Someone once said that to end pollution we should all be driving electric cars because they don't use energy. That statement might not hold up to a reasonable about of scrutiny on several points. Still, the people in the audience nodded their heads and he kept on talking. This gentleman had been introduced as an expert in his field. They never mentioned what he did out there in the field but when he came in to this auditorium he left his expertise back in the field.
Originally Posted By: CT8
It is a false term.
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
What oil retrieved is not a fossil fuel? I've been in the oil industry for almost twenty years and can't think of an example. Of course, you might have a different definition of fossil fuel than I do. I'd be interested to read your thoughts.
What these people are referring to is the popular (because it takes away the need for them to be personally responsible) that oil just "forms" and is therefore limitless.
All sorts of specious arguments arise:
* abandoned wells, when returned to decades later have oil in them...thus it's magically produced by abiotic means.
* Methane exists in the universe where there are no "fossils"...so therefore oil is abiotic.
If the OP or CT8 want to correct the above, with more evidence that it's not formed by biological processes, then have at it.
It is a false term.
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
What oil retrieved is not a fossil fuel? I've been in the oil industry for almost twenty years and can't think of an example. Of course, you might have a different definition of fossil fuel than I do. I'd be interested to read your thoughts.
What these people are referring to is the popular (because it takes away the need for them to be personally responsible) that oil just "forms" and is therefore limitless.
All sorts of specious arguments arise:
* abandoned wells, when returned to decades later have oil in them...thus it's magically produced by abiotic means.
* Methane exists in the universe where there are no "fossils"...so therefore oil is abiotic.
If the OP or CT8 want to correct the above, with more evidence that it's not formed by biological processes, then have at it.
There is theory that oil is not a fossil fuel. We are a long way from a scientific consensus that oil is not a fossil fuel.
Most scientists think the better theory is that oil is indeed a fossil fuel. But there is not as much agreement about this as there is about natural selection and climate change, where the scientific consensus is very, very strong due to massive evidence (from testing the hypotheses over and over like here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HZzGXnYL5I).
I think some people are jumping on the "oil is not a fossil fuel" bandwagon a little prematurely. There just is not enough data behind it yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Most scientists think the better theory is that oil is indeed a fossil fuel. But there is not as much agreement about this as there is about natural selection and climate change, where the scientific consensus is very, very strong due to massive evidence (from testing the hypotheses over and over like here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HZzGXnYL5I).
I think some people are jumping on the "oil is not a fossil fuel" bandwagon a little prematurely. There just is not enough data behind it yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
OK then. I will wait along with Shannow for some follow up facts and figures. Especially ones supporting the initial "small percentage" assertion in the OP.
Thanks for the responses.
My question is not about climate change or electric cars or experts.
It is not a political question with a hidden agenda.
I'm not against the use of fossil fuels.
The question is whether all oil is from fossils, and if it isn't, should we be using a more accurate term that applies to all oil generically. That's it. That's all I was asking. Thank you.
My question is not about climate change or electric cars or experts.
It is not a political question with a hidden agenda.
I'm not against the use of fossil fuels.
The question is whether all oil is from fossils, and if it isn't, should we be using a more accurate term that applies to all oil generically. That's it. That's all I was asking. Thank you.
What about natural gas & natural gas liquids such as natural gasoline? Woild these bevome un-natural a la Hank Hill?
Fossil fuel is more of a layman's term. Similar other terms might by classic cars or antique paintings. The word is descriptive, not proscriptive. A Caprice Classic is a literal classic car but I would hesitate to put it into that category of cars. I haven't seen many paintings of antiques* but have seen many old and collectible paintings.
If people understand what you are talking about, is there really any harm in using the term? If you handed me a jug of peanut oil and told me it was diesel, I wouldn't complain - assuming that it fulfilled the function safely of fueling a diesel engine.
I believe the most generic term that is generally used is hydrocarbons to cover the fluid/gaseous spectrum. If specifics are known, those can be applied such as gas, condensate and oil.
I can't think of any abiotic source of oil that is or has ever been in commercial production to date.
If people understand what you are talking about, is there really any harm in using the term? If you handed me a jug of peanut oil and told me it was diesel, I wouldn't complain - assuming that it fulfilled the function safely of fueling a diesel engine.
I believe the most generic term that is generally used is hydrocarbons to cover the fluid/gaseous spectrum. If specifics are known, those can be applied such as gas, condensate and oil.
I can't think of any abiotic source of oil that is or has ever been in commercial production to date.
We're all geologists here, right? I personally can't think of any other reason hydrocarbons would form within the earth other than organic surface life getting folded and buried by tectonic plates. So, it's gotta be that. Convention wisdom supports my theory, so that's gotta be it.
Also, peak oil and carbon dioxide, amirite guys?
Also, peak oil and carbon dioxide, amirite guys?
I did not know this debate about the original of oil was a "thing" so I have spent some time looking at the source of the abiogenesis argument.
Basically it boils down to what Shannow cited above, a) specious oil field revival figures and b) the existence of carbon fuel that is not biogenic in orgin (methane).
I found a geologist who carefully went through the arguments for abiogenesis and pointed out the flaws. If you click the link, don't be afraid of the length it appears. There are large graphics, and copious comments and other things at the end. It's not terribly long or hard to read. Even skimming it is effective.
Oil - Where did it come from?
Basically it boils down to what Shannow cited above, a) specious oil field revival figures and b) the existence of carbon fuel that is not biogenic in orgin (methane).
I found a geologist who carefully went through the arguments for abiogenesis and pointed out the flaws. If you click the link, don't be afraid of the length it appears. There are large graphics, and copious comments and other things at the end. It's not terribly long or hard to read. Even skimming it is effective.
Oil - Where did it come from?
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
We're all geologists here, right? I personally can't think of any other reason hydrocarbons would form within the earth other than organic surface life getting folded and buried by tectonic plates. So, it's gotta be that. Convention wisdom supports my theory, so that's gotta be it.
Also, peak oil and carbon dioxide, amirite guys?
I don't quite understand what you are driving at here. If it is an attempt at sarcasm, text based communications don't convey it well. I do find it interesting that you cite a theory in plate tectonics that was only fully fleshed out through relatively recent scientific studies. But to discuss that would derail the original issue at hand.
We're all geologists here, right? I personally can't think of any other reason hydrocarbons would form within the earth other than organic surface life getting folded and buried by tectonic plates. So, it's gotta be that. Convention wisdom supports my theory, so that's gotta be it.
Also, peak oil and carbon dioxide, amirite guys?
I don't quite understand what you are driving at here. If it is an attempt at sarcasm, text based communications don't convey it well. I do find it interesting that you cite a theory in plate tectonics that was only fully fleshed out through relatively recent scientific studies. But to discuss that would derail the original issue at hand.
This thread reminded me of a Nova episode that I watched recently. The relevant studies presented covered the abiotic creation of life. Please forgive the copy/paste. My movile browser is not handling the link insert macro well.
http://naturedocumentaries.org/3023/origin-life-pbs-2011/
http://naturedocumentaries.org/3023/origin-life-pbs-2011/
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
What oil retrieved is not a fossil fuel? I've been in the oil industry for almost twenty years and can't think of an example. Of course, you might have a different definition of fossil fuel than I do. I'd be interested to read your thoughts.
noun, Energy.
1. any combustible organic material, as oil, coal, or natural gas, derived from the remains of former life.
The fossil part basically means that if it could form a fossil, it could form a fossil fuel. That being said, the geological constraints required to form fossils and fuels are pretty much mutually exclusive. If the thing fossilized, it is unlikely to have contributed its carbon and hydrogen molecules to fuel. Note that I am not saying that fossil bearing formations can't also serve as hydrocarbon sources.
Oil is the byprodcut of an abiotic process in the Earth. It is not made from fossils. It is under constant creation by the planet.
What oil retrieved is not a fossil fuel? I've been in the oil industry for almost twenty years and can't think of an example. Of course, you might have a different definition of fossil fuel than I do. I'd be interested to read your thoughts.
noun, Energy.
1. any combustible organic material, as oil, coal, or natural gas, derived from the remains of former life.
The fossil part basically means that if it could form a fossil, it could form a fossil fuel. That being said, the geological constraints required to form fossils and fuels are pretty much mutually exclusive. If the thing fossilized, it is unlikely to have contributed its carbon and hydrogen molecules to fuel. Note that I am not saying that fossil bearing formations can't also serve as hydrocarbon sources.
Oil is the byprodcut of an abiotic process in the Earth. It is not made from fossils. It is under constant creation by the planet.
The theory behind fossil fuels is that it was created from fossils over millions of years. Unfortunately, that cannot be true since the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
So I agree with the OP, it's an incorrect and misleading term. Part of the science propaganda machine, no doubt.
So I agree with the OP, it's an incorrect and misleading term. Part of the science propaganda machine, no doubt.
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
The theory behind fossil fuels is that it was created from fossils over millions of years. Unfortunately, that cannot be true since the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
The theory behind fossil fuels is that it was created from fossils over millions of years. Unfortunately, that cannot be true since the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
- Status
Similar threads
