petrol is not fossile, page 2

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:18 AM

link

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

There might be some supporting evidence, but it's not as complete a picture as the current idea. When it becomes a viable alternative theory, it will be accepted more. The problem with the theory isn't that it's controversial, but that it's so nascent.

kind of hard to fight all the dollars that are thrown into keeping it that way.

cruzion

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:25 AM

link

Geologists evidence is no more sound, with the only thing that could be deemed as supporting it being that they find fossils in the oil wells on occassion. As if THAT wouldn't happen in Gold's model.

Except that in a lot of cases, you have non-porous basement rocks, and on top of them you have sedimentary strata which contain oil. The oil could not have been pushed through the (igneous/metamorphic)basement rock.
Combine that with the fact that oil is not found in sedimentary layers that belong to eras before abundant marine life on earth, and you have a pretty convincing argument.

cruzion

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link

kind of hard to fight all the dollars that are thrown into keeping it that way.

Based on big oils vast profits of biogenic oil, it would be logical to assume that big oil would be making the same type of profits from abiotic oil - so, it beggars the question "why would big oil NOT want to make even bigger profits?"
The scenario isn't logical.

bigfatfurrytexan

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link

Originally posted by cruzion

kind of hard to fight all the dollars that are thrown into keeping it that way.

Based on big oils vast profits of biogenic oil, it would be logical to assume that big oil would be making the same type of profits from abiotic oil - so, it beggars the question "why would big oil NOT want to make even bigger profits?"
The scenario isn't logical.

sure it is. if oil can be made in the lab, why would we need "big oil"? Its percieved "rareness" is what gives it the astronomical value.

So...how did oil form on the surface of Titan? Were there dinosaurs there?

bigfatfurrytexan

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link

Originally posted by cruzion

Geologists evidence is no more sound, with the only thing that could be deemed as supporting it being that they find fossils in the oil wells on occassion. As if THAT wouldn't happen in Gold's model.

Except that in a lot of cases, you have non-porous basement rocks, and on top of them you have sedimentary strata which contain oil. The oil could not have been pushed through the (igneous/metamorphic)basement rock.
Combine that with the fact that oil is not found in sedimentary layers that belong to eras before abundant marine life on earth, and you have a pretty convincing argument.

That is true, it does make a convincing arguement. I would like to see the research done to verify it as fact.

Russia seems to be awefully interested in the Gold theory...and they all of a sudden are one of the biggest oil exporters in the world.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

cruzion

posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link

sure it is. if oil can be made in the lab, why would we need "big oil"? Its percieved "rareness" is what gives it the astronomical value.

So...how did oil form on the surface of Titan? Were there dinosaurs there?

Dinosaurs do not make oil; but that is not to say that there isn't dinosaurs on Titan - we know so l ittle about it. I was unaware they had brought back oil samples from Titan.
Do you have any proof they are making oil in laboratories? Are they making it in sufficient enough quantities to satisfy a demand? Do they have a system of production in place that uses less energy to produce the energy, than what it creates? Do you have the names of the oil companies or research groups involved, or is it 'internet hearsay'? Do you have any specifics about the process?

What astronomic value? A barrel of whiskey is way more expensive than a barrell of oil.

cruzion

posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link

Russia seems to be awefully interested in the Gold theory...and they all of a sudden are one of the biggest oil exporters in the world.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

You should change that to 'Russians WERE awfully interested in the Gold theory' Like everyone else, they lost interest in it too by the end of the 80's.
Russia has always been one of the big oil exporters. The Caspian basin has been a huge source of gas, oil and minerals for centuries, and was at the top of Hitlers list when he invaded Russia, not to mention the oil reserves they have in Siberia. Their resurgence in exports is due to the privatisation of the oil industry after the collapse of the Socialist Republic.
Russia holds the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. Russia is also the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter and the third largest energy consumer.

Have a look at this:

www.theoildrum.com...

""The carbon in methane molecules comes in different varieties, or isotopes - carbon-12 (12C) and carbon-13 (13C). Each 13C atom has an extra neutron in its nucleus, making them slightly heavier than 12C atoms, so the GCMS can distinguish between methane with 12C and methane with 13C.

Living organisms have a preference for carbon-12. As a result, carbon-containing molecules, such as methane, that are associated with life on Earth get enriched in 12C. The ratio of 12C to 13C is a marker or signature of life. However, the team did not see 12C enrichment in the methane on Titan."

So the way researchers know that Titan's methane is abiotic, is also how they know Earth's is biological." - Is that proof enough for you? I mean, if you believe the abiogenesis scientists on abiotic oil, and how they know it is abiotic, you have to believe them on how they know oil is biotic, right?
I'm not arguing that abiotic anything is not possible - is certainly is, but can it be found in any quantity? The vast majority of people in the oil business don't think so.

cruzion

posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link

OK, how about all the major oil fields in America were once river beds, lakes, ancient deltas, shorelines and the best producing fields: ancient reefs? That's ALL the major oil and gas fields in this country.

cruzion

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link

I guess the thread is dead.
Yes, oil IS a fossil product.

cruzion

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link

Here's a quick overview of Russias biggest oilfields
First field is Sakhalin.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.blackbourn.co.uk...

Notice that it is a sedimentary basin.

Next is Priobskoye Field.
Notice it too is a sedimentary basin...
www.geocities.com...

Next is Romashkino Field.
Notice they are sedimentary rocks...
www.geocities.com...

Next is Samotlor Field, the largest oil field in Russia.
Shallow water marine-sedimentary.
search.datapages.com...

Next is Timan-Pechora Basin.
Ordovician to Triassic sediments.
www.casp.cam.ac.uk...

Yuzhno-Russkoye field is just gas
Next, and lastly, is the Zhiguli Mountains.
Permian and Carboniferous sediments.
www.answers.com...