The lies about Oil and the games we play

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

The market forces are to continually create the opinion of a massive shortage, as they have continually been doing since the 1960's. This allows them to keep raising the price, and make more profit, while having to do less work for each dollar.

Sorry, your comment doesn't hold water to me...

If oil can be formed abiogenically, why is it only in sedimentary rocks?

Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs.

From the limited amount of reading I've done on this subject, I think there is some evidence pointing towards the possibility of abiogenic oil formation. But in the end the fact that there has yet to be a full on 'gusher' that is clearly not from some sedimentary source rock is the best deciding factor in this debate.

Thanks for posting the link, which unfortunately concludes:

Given that these trends are not observed in the isotopic signatures of economic gas reservoirs, we can now rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons.

Future Shock

Hey, no doubt. The title of the article is "Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs."

That a small amount of alkanes can be produced in the presence of CO2, H2O, and heat should not be suprising. Do the math for godssake. 2(CO2 + H2O) + energy = CH4 + 3(O2)
Methane (CH4) is the primary component of natural gas.
It's pretty much impossible to argue against that article. Abiotic hydrocarbon production is certainly possible, but by no means on a scale anywhere near capable of supporting our energy needs.

Finally someone who understands!
Have one on me Vic.:beer:

 

[Jarhead]

Dr. Thomas Gold

- is an enormously respected physicist who put forth in 1950, distant radio souces from the stars are galaxies, later proven
- he said that the pulsing stars were neutron stars, it is now a fact (called pulsars)
- before we landed on the moon, he said the moon was covered with fine dust, everyone said it was all volcanic and hard, he was right
- In his Swedish experiment, they drilled through deep granite and found crude oil.
- He ran the Cornell Center for Radiophysics and Space Research for 20 years
- an Austrian astrophysicist, a professor of astronomy at Cornell University, and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences.
- He had the unusual ability to cross academic and scientific boundaries, into biophysics, astrophysics, space engineering, or geophysics, to challenge longstanding dogma with his profound insights.
- He was educated at Zuoz College in Switzerland and Trinity College, Cambridge.
- He worked with Bondi and Fred Hoyle (near Dunsfold in Surrey) on RADAR a partnership which would extend into astrophysics. His RADAR development work, was for British Admiralty during World War II
- He worked at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, in Herstmonceaux, Sussex, England, and at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
- He won the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1985.
- Fellow, American Geophysical Union
- For 7 years a member of the President's Space Science Panel (US)
-Honorary M.A. Harvard University

Obituary- The Guardian

Controversy followed him everywhere. Possessing profound scientific intuition and open-minded rigour, he usually ended up challenging the cherished assumptions of others and, to the discomfiture of the scientific establishment, often found them wanting. His stature and influence were international.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1245819,00.html



Wired Magazine
Author Oliver Morton
Speaking to Dr. Tommy Gold

"What's the evidence for that?

Many fields have produced several times as much as the initial testing of their magnitude would have indicated. Some geologists frankly agree that fields are refilling themselves - Robert Mahfoud and James Beck, who say fields in the Middle East are refilling, and Jean Whelan, who has observed a site refilling in the Gulf of Mexico - though they won't concede my theory is correct.

In Sweden I produced oil by the ton from 6 kilometers down. Eighty barrels we pumped, perfectly ordinary crude oil, entirely in nonsedimentary rock, in granite. It looked like perfectly good stuff. "

...

"The Russians have drilled 300 holes in Tatarstan since the Swedish experiments. They give me the credit for making the final determination between the biogenic and abiogenic theory by finding petroleum in the bedrock of Sweden. "


Physics World
"If he is right, the consequences could be dramatic ... This book serves to set the record straight."

Donald B. Siano-
- a physicist at the corporate research labs of a major oil company
"This morning's New York Times featured an article "Methane in Deep Earth: A Possible New Source of Energy" reporting on new research that partly confirms the claim in this book-- that the methane deep in the earth's mantle is primordial (not due to decayed buried vegetation) and is the source of petroleum. The article showed how methane can be generated from water and carbonate rock when the applied pressure is equal to that found in the mantle.

Gold's book describes research done largely by Russians and Ukrainians on the origin of oil, which has been shamefully discounted and ignored in the West. The Western dogma, he claims, is just another one of those things that nearly everyone believes, but is wrong. "

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038798...256-9450539?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance


Gold later altered his hypothesis to propose a "deep, hot biosphere" of methane-producing organisms and has been proved resoundingly right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1245819,00.html

One of his papers:
There are strong indications that microbial life is widespread at depth in the crust of the Earth, just as such life has been identified in numerous ocean vents. This life is not dependent on solar energy and photosynthesis for its primary energy supply, and it is essentially independent of the surface circumstances. Its energy supply comes from chemical sources, due to fluids that migrate upward from deeper levels in the Earth.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=49434
(click on the links there to read the full paper)


Russian petroleum geologists followed this operation closely. Dr. P.N. Kropotkin reported at a meeting in Moscow that the discovery of oil deep in the Baltic Shield may be considered a decisive factor in the hundred year old debate about the biogenic or abiogenic origin of oil. This discovery was made in deep wells that were drilled in the central part of the crystalline Baltic Shield, on the initiative of T. Gold.

Drilling into crystalline bedrock is now underway in Russia on a large scale. More than 300 wells have been drilled to a depth of more than 5 km and are productive, as also is the giant White Tiger field offshore Vietnam, mostly producing also from basement rock.
http://web.archive.org/web/200210041231...ople.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/index.html

His page on the oil wells that keep refilling themselves:
There have been numerous reports in recent times, of oil and gas fields not running out at the expected time, but instead showing a higher content of hydrocarbons after they had already produced more than the initially estimated amount. This has been seen in the Middle East, in the deep gas wells of Oklahoma, on the Gulf of Mexico coast, and in other places. It is this apparent refilling during production that has been responsible for the series of gross underestimate of reserves that have been published time and again...
http://web.archive.org/web/200210020427...ple.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/recharging/


The many molecules of unquestionably biological origin in petroleum - hopanes, pristine, phytane, steranes, certain porphyrins - can all be produced by bacteria, and such microbial life at depth is indeed now seen to be widespread. The presence of these molecules can no longer be taken to be indicative of a biological origin of petroleum, but merely of the widespread presence of a microflora at depth. The presence of helium and of numerous trace metals, often in far higher concentrations in petroleum than in its present host rock, has then an explanation in the scavenging action of hydrocarbon fluids on their long way up. Many mineral deposits may be due to the formation and transportation of organo-metallic compounds in such streams, often interacting with microbial life in the outer crust.
http://web.archive.org/web/200210030519...ple.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/Natgas.html

Sir Robert Robinson, who investigated the chemistry of natural petroleum in some detail, noted that the deeper one goes, the fewer are the signs of anything biological in the oil. This is clearly a case in point, but there are several others.
http://web.archive.org/web/200210030519...ople.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/depth.html


The regional and local association of terrestrial natural petroleum with helium has been clearly verified in thousands of locations.
...
An origin of petroleum from sedimentary biological materials could not account for the helium association, as no chemical interaction exists that would cause biological materials to concentrate the noble gas. But equally, the association of petroleum with biological molecules ("biomarkers") cannot be doubted, and has been explained as arising from the origin of hydrocarbons from biological deposits. This creates a paradox.
http://web.archive.org/web/200210030516...ople.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/assoc.html

Earthquakes following large discharges of gas from deep in the earth:
One city has been successfully evacuated two hours before a massive earthquake, and thereby probably many thousands of lives were saved. This was the city of Haicheng in China, in February of 1975. That prediction was based almost entirely on gas-related phenomena.
http://web.archive.org/web/200206120751...ple.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/Earthq.html
Eyewitness accounts:
http://web.archive.org/web/200210152015...ple.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/eyewit.html

The close association of gold with carbon is well recorded in the literature. Conventional wisdom gives no hint of an explanation either for the association with carbon, or even for the occurrence of metallic gold altogether. It seems that carbon is an essential component in the laying down of gold. The gold miners of olden days knew this very well, and followed the "black leader", a trail of carbon black that led frequently to a gold deposit.
http://web.archive.org/web/200210030523...ople.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/metal.html

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
"You will note" that I was responding to your argument that claimed that it's irrelevant that methane is only one component of oil. "You will note" that the fact that methane is is not oil is relevant to this thread because supposed abiogenic methane formation does not mean that there is abiogenic oil formation. I don't know why this methane thing is such a big deal to you anyway. All I said is that methane != oil.

Edit: According to your link Jupiter's atmosphere contains a lot of methane and ethane. Great, they are abiogenic. Does that mean that they are close enough to oil that... wait a minute, you don't believe in abiogenic oil either.. So what are you saying? That I'm ignorant and that "methane is close to oil" because it is one of its alkane components?

Way to switch your argument. :roll:

You did not say that "methane != oil," you said that "Methane isn't anywhere close to oil." Obviously, methane is not oil. But it is a primary component of oil, identical in chemical forumlation (CnH2n+2) to all the other primary components of oil, which obviously does make it quite "close" to oil.

Nor did I say that didn't believe in abiogenic oil formation. I said that I didn't hold to the "OP's theory", i.e. in abiogenic oil formation capable of infinitely sustaining the world's oil needs.

Get a fsckin' clue, eh? You complain of pseudoscience (which the OP did do) but then spout your own psuedoscience (as though 2 wrongs make a right). When called upon and corrected for it, you further discredit yourself by resorting to mischaracterizations of those who corrected you.

1) Well, I'm sorry I didn't realize that you believe in abiotic oil formation other than the OP's. I'll make sure to look for semantic tricks from now on.

2) Maybe you misinterpreted. I meant that the formation of methane does not even come close to the formation of oil. It would be equivalent to saying that plants produce sugar, so plants can bake cakes. The fact that methane is an alkane, and oil is made of alkanes, does not mean that oil can form itself from heat, carbon, and hydrogen.

3) You believe that the specific mixture of hydrocarbons that is produced from plant material can be created by minerals, pressure, and heat.... And you call me ignorant.

 

[Jarhead]

It's been fun for the weekend, you know?


It is not some weird fringe idea, check this out:


AAPG- American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2003:
The AAPG Hedberg Conference on the "Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production," will be held June 9-12 at the Institute of Petroleum in London.
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm


And the American Association Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) continue learning and debating:
?Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production,? planned for Vienna, Austria, July 11?14, 2004
http://www.aapg.org/business/annual/research.cfm

And it still continues:
AAPG will be holding a one-day session on the topic at the June 2005 annual meeting in Calgary, Alberta

Exactly what is the conference about?
For half a century, scientists from the former Soviet Union (FSU) have recognized that the petroleum produced from fields in the FSU have been generated by abiogenic processes. This is not a new concept being reported in 1951. The Russians have used this concept as an exploration strategy and have successfully discovered petroleum fields of which a number of these fields produce either partly and entirely from crystalline basement. Is this exploration strategy limited to the petroleum provinces in Russia or does such a strategy have application to other petroleum provinces like the Gulf of Mexico or the Middle East? Some believe this is a possibility for fields in the Gulf of Mexico, and others argue for application to fields in the Middle East.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?...ydrocarbon_Exploration_and_Productions

 

[desy]

1 Easy to get oil is running out
2 It makes alternative R&D more attractive because many processes can compete when oil is over 50 a barrel and just need to be made large scale. Oil companies want oil!
3 Its in oil companies interests for their stock holders to claim lots of oil, Shell got busted for overestimating their in ground supply and got punished by stockholders/gov't

4 Oil gave mankind a 150 yr gift to progress further in the last hundred than at anytime in the history of man. Hopefully we don't squander the opportunity.

 

[acemcmac]

Interesting thread

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Oil lubricates the tectonic plates...we're pumping it all out, causing friction in the plates, causing the earthquakes 🙁

I was about to say the same thing. But I was just going to say it to kid around. 😉

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

GEO minor, right here. 🙂

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

GEO minor, right here. 🙂

BS in Geology here but been doing computers since about a year after I graduated.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I was digging in my back yard and found some jsut an inch down.

GET IT DIPSHIT! Oil is a finite supply. We need alternative energy now, tommorrow, next year or next centeury.

Or we can continue assuming the OZone layer is fine and global warming is "normal"

actually the ozone hole is healing now

At a extremely slow rate, while the damage done is causing a lot of problems. Still a lot of ozone depletion gathering at the poles, where the most damage can be done.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I was digging in my back yard and found some jsut an inch down.

GET IT DIPSHIT! Oil is a finite supply. We need alternative energy now, tommorrow, next year or next centeury.

Or we can continue assuming the OZone layer is fine and global warming is "normal"

actually the ozone hole is healing now

Great! So all our ground level smog is actually working it's way up there? 🙂

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

3) You believe that the specific mixture of hydrocarbons that is produced from plant material can be created by minerals, pressure, and heat.... And you call me ignorant.

I just wanted to point out that that is the magic formula upon which, given enough time, anything can be created. Everything on this planet was ultimately created by the combination of heat + matter + pressure (gravity). Actually the pressure is not really needed, but certainly speeds things up.
What you basically just called someone ignorant for thinking that complex molecules can be created with the interaction of energy and matter. I call you ignorant for thinking they can be created any other way. Life can speed up the process by being selective of how the matter and energy is brought together but it is, technically speaking, not necessary.

 

[desy]

All we have to do, is do!

Like I said alternatives are abundant, The US has half of the worlds coal supply I believe

The main obstacle in synfuel production has always been the cost of production, about $35 for a barrel of finished product. But given the current price of oil-based fuels, and with long-term buyers like the military, the timing is right. New loan guarantees and other incentives in the Energy Bill give coal-to-liquids a big boost, but a real federal investment?far less than what the oil industry now receives in the form of subsidies and tax breaks?would go a long way in further bringing down the cost of production.

Believe it or not, America once made these types of investments. The U.S. government was seriously involved in trying to perfect the coal-to-liquids process well before the Germans raced ahead of us. In the 1920s, the U.S. Bureau of Mines was making synfuel and studying ways to make it on a large scale. In the 1940s, with passage of the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act and an appropriation of almost $80 million for research and development, synfuel had a bright future. By 1953 a test plant in the town of Louisiana, Missouri was churning out several thousand barrels per day of synthetic, unleaded gasoline.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: desy
All we have to do, is do!

Like I said alternatives are abundant, The US has half of the worlds coal supply I believe

The main obstacle in synfuel production has always been the cost of production, about $35 for a barrel of finished product. But given the current price of oil-based fuels, and with long-term buyers like the military, the timing is right. New loan guarantees and other incentives in the Energy Bill give coal-to-liquids a big boost, but a real federal investment?far less than what the oil industry now receives in the form of subsidies and tax breaks?would go a long way in further bringing down the cost of production.

Believe it or not, America once made these types of investments. The U.S. government was seriously involved in trying to perfect the coal-to-liquids process well before the Germans raced ahead of us. In the 1920s, the U.S. Bureau of Mines was making synfuel and studying ways to make it on a large scale. In the 1940s, with passage of the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act and an appropriation of almost $80 million for research and development, synfuel had a bright future. By 1953 a test plant in the town of Louisiana, Missouri was churning out several thousand barrels per day of synthetic, unleaded gasoline.

I'm all for it, but I doubt the environmental extremists would allow it without a long, ugly fight. Their insistence that science relies on beliefs, as opposed to objectivity, clouds their judgement.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
1) Well, I'm sorry I didn't realize that you believe in abiotic oil formation other than the OP's. I'll make sure to look for semantic tricks from now on.

2) Maybe you misinterpreted. I meant that the formation of methane does not even come close to the formation of oil. It would be equivalent to saying that plants produce sugar, so plants can bake cakes. The fact that methane is an alkane, and oil is made of alkanes, does not mean that oil can form itself from heat, carbon, and hydrogen.

3) You believe that the specific mixture of hydrocarbons that is produced from plant material can be created by minerals, pressure, and heat.... And you call me ignorant.

:roll:

1) I don't have any such belief and never said so. In fact, I specifically said the opposite. Any "semantic tricks" must come from your lack of reading comprehension, or perhaps from some ideological motivation.

2) I cannot misinterpret what you did not say. Maybe you meant to say that, but you actually say it didn't prior to this post.

3) Given that suns produce heavy elements from helium and hydrogen with nothing but heat and pressue, I admit that I must be forced to accept the possibility. But belief has nothing to with it. Belief is a word for religion, and has nothing to do with science.

Regardless, this is irrelevant. Abiogenic methane (natural gas) in large quantities, were it ever to be found, would be every bit as wonderful a discovery as abiogenic oil. Methane is hardly worthless yaknow.