Oil is not of fossil origin and is inexhaustible, page 2

reply to post by polar

---

This is very interesting. I've never heard of it. S&F.

Link with more info on Abiotic Oil:
en.wikipedia...


reply to post by Solenki

---

I think that just because the Petroleoum we usually extract from Earth comes from decomposed organic matter, it doesn't mean that ALL the oil comes from it. IMO, the theory has great validity.

But maybe the OP could change the title of the thread, cause just because Abiotic oil production may be somewhat possible, it doesn't mean that ALL of it is abiotic either.

[edit to correct a few things]
[edit on 16/11/2009 by MorfeuZ]

[edit on 16/11/2009 by MorfeuZ]

Do some simple research:

en.wikipedia.org...

wiki:

A number of geologists in Russia adhere to the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis and maintain that hydrocarbons of purely inorganic origin exist within Earth's interior. Astronomer Thomas Gold championed the theory in the Western world by supporting the work done by Nikolai Kudryavtsev in the 1950s. It is currently supported primarily by Kenney and Krayushkin.[15]

The abiogenic origin hypothesis lacks scientific support. Extensive research into the chemical structure of kerogen has identified algae as the primary source of oil. The abiogenic origin hypothesis fails to explain the presence of these markers in kerogen and oil, as well as failing to explain how inorganic origin could be achieved at temperatures and pressures sufficient to convert kerogen to graphite. It has not been successfully used in uncovering oil deposits by geologists, as the hypothesis lacks any mechanism for determining where the process may occur.[16] More recently scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under conditions of the upper mantle.[17]

[edit on 11/16/2009 by die_another_day]

reply to post by Solenki

---

You tell him to read and do his own research. But where does your research come from? Government approved science books? There is only so much information avaible in this world that is not tainted by government corruption. I'm not sayin that either one of you is right or wrong. I'm just sayin.

reply to post by Solenki

---

OH MY GOD!

If I have to hear another one of these round Earth theories, I am going to cry.

All of the Earth's leading scientists agree that the Earth is flat! The Church even backs it with proof in the Bible!

We know that the Earth has four corners, as told in the ancient texts. Everyone knows something that is round can't have corners!

All of the approved study and text books say so as well!

Besides . . .it looks flat!




/sarcasm




[edit on 11/16/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by Solenki

---

You tell him to read and do his own research. But where does your research come from? Government approved science books? There is only so much information avaible in this world that is not tainted by government corruption. I'm not sayin that either one of you is right or wrong. I'm just sayin.

I enjoyed what you said there


[edit on 16-11-2009 by polar]

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by endisnighe
I have done extensive research on this topic.

God I love it when I see introductions like this!

I think you've been doing your "Exstensive Research" referecing the wrong texts - or should I say websites. You'll be hard pressed to find any academic supporting the Abiotic theory.

Alaska is in decline, so I don't know where you sourced this "200 year" supply from. Oh wait a minute - I do know! The same websites you got all the other misinformation off!

We are probably at peak tap flow now people. But don't take my word for it. Go and research it for yourselves, using valid industry sources - not crackpot websites.

Star for you my friend, glad to see some rational person here

Originally posted by polar
reply to post by Solenki

---

the rest is not worth to comment as it just false information from some portuguese (no offense I love Portugal, went there 3 times in the last years) forum with no source, no papers, nothing.

You don't need to come here full of rocks in your hands because of what is written here. I pasted this article wich i read in that forum because i found it to be very interesting and wanted to share. Each one think what they want out of it as i made it myself. I´m not telling this is real i didn't even wrote it! You chose what to believe.
you should chose better ways to explain some stuff with your higher scientific knowledge on this subject, like a more civilized way respecting others not laughing about it.


So this is an American book with american authors translated to portuguese wich i translated to English!
For more about them, do a little search.
[edit on 16-11-2009 by polar]

I never wanted to laugh about you, it's just that your expensive research about this subject wasn't based on scientific methods but on misinformation and others unworthy sources.
Don't share if you are not sure of you, don't take everything you read on forum as fact, this is how you propagate ignorance, for me, this is just like scientific spam.
Maybe you find me rude because I'm not speaking in my mother tongue and that's why it's difficult for me to explain myself.

Maybe I can write a subject about how oil forms and about geology in general, maybe if I have time to do such a large project.

Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by Solenki

---

You tell him to read and do his own research. But where does your research come from? Government approved science books? There is only so much information avaible in this world that is not tainted by government corruption. I'm not sayin that either one of you is right or wrong. I'm just sayin.

Stop being in the denying of every single thing for the love of gods. Gladly my research comes from myself, again I am a Geologist.
I don't know how to explain myself on this subject, since english is not my mother tongue, I'll say it in french, and mybe someone can help to translate it, I don't want to us some bad internet translator:

J'ai l'impression que depuis quelques temps cela devient une tendance et une sorte de "mode" que de vouloir trouver des complots partout où il peut en exister et plus particulièrement dans les faits scientifiques. Comme s'il fallait trouver le moyen de prouver que toute les recherches effectuées ces 100 dernières années n'étaient que pour mentir à la population.
C'est d'autant plus triste quand cela touche à des domaines que l'on pratique, j'ai moi même vu et effectué des analyses sur des systèmes pétroliers, c'est pour cela que toutes ces fausses informations m'énervent au plus au point.

Well Lemon.Freshesh you are damn right

Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by Solenki

---

You tell him to read and do his own research. But where does your research come from? Government approved science books?

The good old Conspirators argument! The government is covering up! It's a catch-all defense!

Only this time, it's been proven to be quite the opposite - that's if you bother to read the news:IEA Whistle Blower Says Government Inflated Oil Reserves

I'm confused! According to your theory, the government should be trying to convince us that we are running out of oil - not pressuring the IEA to say the opposite!!!

Dear oh dear

[edit on 16-11-2009 by mckyle]

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
reply to post by polar

---

This is very interesting. I've never heard of it. S&F.

Link with more info on Abiotic Oil:
en.wikipedia...


reply to post by Solenki

---

I think that just because the Petroleoum we usually extract from Earth comes from decomposed organic matter, it doesn't mean that ALL the oil comes from it. IMO, the theory has great validity.

But maybe the OP could change the title of the thread, cause just because Abiotic oil production may be somewhat possible, it doesn't mean that ALL of it is abiotic either.

[edit to correct a few things]
[edit on 16/11/2009 by MorfeuZ]

[edit on 16/11/2009 by MorfeuZ]

In fact ! And it has been proved that there is an unorganic source of petroleum, I don't discuss that fact of course I agree with you

Originally posted by mckyle
You'll be hard pressed to find any academic supporting the Abiotic theory.

Are you sure?

Perhaps researching abiotic oil should start at ATS.
There are some pretty good posts about it.

Allow me to quote myself from 2004.

Originally posted by makeitso
Here is the PNAS information. Dated 2002.
PNAS The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum

Conclusions from the PNAS: The pressure of 30 kbar, at which the theoretical analyses of section 4 predicts that the Hydrocarbon system must evolve ethane and heavier hydrocarbon compounds, corresponds to a depth of more than 100 km. The results of the theoretical analysis shown in Fig. 2 clearly establish that the evolution of the molecular components of natural petroleum occur at depth at least as great as those of the mantle of the Earth, as shown graphically in Fig. 4, in which are represented the thermal and pressure lapse rates in the depths of the Earth.

Here is the followup testing (Again) Dated 9-2004
Physicsweb - Petroleum under pressure

Scientists in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than previously thought.

And the PNAS for it:
Generation of methane in the Earth's mantle: In situ high pressure?temperature measurements of carbonate reduction

Conclusions: The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed. The wide pressure?temperature?composition stability field of methane documented here has broad implications for the hydrocarbon budget of the planet and indicates that methane may be a more prevalent carbon-bearing phase in the mantle than previously thought, with implications for the deep hot biosphere (25). In particular, isotopic evidence indicating the prevalence of biogenic hydrocarbons pertains to economically exploited hydrocarbon gas reservoirs, largely in sedimentary basins (2); these observations and analyses do not rule out the potential for large abiogenic reservoirs in the mantle. Moreover, the assumption that CO2 is the sole carrier of mantle-derived noble gasses (26, 27) should be reevaluated. Finally, the potential may exist for the high-pressure formation of heavier hydrocarbons by using mantle-generated methane as a precursor.

From the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dated 1999
Abiogenic methane formation and isotopic fractionation under hydrothermal conditions

These results, combined with the increasing recognition of nickel-iron alloy occurrence in oceanic crusts, suggest that abiogenic methane may be more widespread than previously thought.


Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. Dated 1994.
Mantle hydrocarbons: abiotic or biotic?

It appears that hydrocarbons may survive high pressures and temperatures in the mantle, but they are decomposed into lighter hydrocarbon gases such as CH4 at lower pressures when magmas intrude into the crust; consequently, peridotite cumulates do not contain heavier hydrocarbons but possess hydrocarbon gases up to C4H10.

[edit on 29-10-2004 by makeitso]

I would advise anybody reading this thread to ensure that they read the responses put forward by Solenki. Particulary This One
and This One

It's not hard to tell that he works in the industry and he knows what he is talking about!

Once again Solenki, thanks for brining some common sense and factual knowledge to this discussion

reply to post by Solenki

---

Gladly my research comes from myself, again I am a Geologist.

From a geologist point of view, how do we explain hydrocarbon sources from other planets or even existent in nebula? Is life really that abundant or if there is another non-life mechanism for hydrocarbon production, then how can we so readily argue that this process never occurs on Earth at all? If hydrocarbons are created from decayed life and life is composed and utilizes hydrocarbons, then where did life come from if hydrocarbons can't be produces without life?

I'm not attacking, I'm genuinely curious how the process works as I don't know and from the geologists argument it seems to be contradiction to everything I assumed and appears that it would also prove evolution wrong and prove the creationists right. I honestly can't find a way to reconcile what you've stated about the source of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons being only from life.

reply to post by makeitso

---

I love it....you came in said your piece with science backing you up and they ran. Cheers to you friend

Peace

Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by mckyle
You'll be hard pressed to find any academic supporting the Abiotic theory.

Are you sure?

Yes. I am sure.
And so is Wikipedia

The theory that petroleum is derived from biogenic processes is held by the overwhelming majority of petroleum geologists.[130] Abiogenic theorists however, such as the late professor of astronomy Thomas Gold at Cornell University, assert that the source of oil may not be a limited supply of “fossil fuels”, but instead an abiotic process. They theorize that if abiogenic petroleum sources are found to be abundant, Earth would contain vast reserves of untapped petroleum.[131] The abiogenic origin hypothesis lacks scientific support, and all current oil reserves have evidence of biological origin. It also has not been successfully used in uncovering oil deposits by geologists.

Not to impune your good name sir, but not all who publish academic work, are necessarily recognised by the international academic community.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by mckyle]

Originally posted by polar


Article is an excerpt from the book: "Black Gold Stranglehold "de Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith

Authors:
Jerome Corsi: Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. His latest best-seller was The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. He is a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.com and the author of two books on contemporary Iran: Atomic Iran and Showdown with Nuclear Iran. In his 2005 book Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, which he co-authored with Craig. R. Smith, Dr. Corsi predicted oil prices at over $100 a barrel.

This wasn't written by some ignorants as you guys are making of it.
Information about authors:

Craig R. Smith: Craig R. Smith is Chairman of Swiss America Trading Corporation, a national investment firm specializing in U.S. gold and silver coins. Mr. Smith founded the company in 1982 out of a bedroom in his home with $50.00. It has since grown into one of the largest and most respected firms in the industry known for its dedication to consumer education and safety..... www.craigrsmith.com...

So this is an American book with american authors translated to portuguese wich i translated to English!
For more about them, do a little search.


[edit on 16-11-2009 by polar]

Two well-esteemed Geologists I see. Much better would be investigating peer-reviewed Scientific scholarly articles by Geologists rather than Entrepreneurs/Political Scientists as they may well not understand the nuances that Geologists are equipped to (this is a geological subject, right?).
At this stage, I am with my fellow geologist Solenki. (S)he understands (sorry, unsure of your gender, not that it's important).
I am not a petroleum geologist, rather a paleontologist/sedimentologist and specifically a laboratory technician at a Tertiary Institution. There is a crossover however. I can assure you, at least in the case of the Geology Department at my institution, that we do not engage in deceit and do our best to understand the mechanisms of the Earth.

reply to post by sirnex

---

It will be hard for me to explain everything excuse me in advance.
First, being a geologist I am specialized in earth processes, what I do know about other planets and space is form articles, scientific reviews and some PhD friends.
Your question will be best answered by an astrophysicist.

The thing is, we can find molecules in space not made form organic process but from physical and chemical reaction between atoms.
in 1940 we only know CH, CH+ and CN were present into space, then we found OH, then NO, H2O and others, for exemple we know nebula made of alchool.

What you have to understand here is that organic being do the same reaction creating molecules from atoms.

Now, our main source of oil and gaz comes from the degradation of organic matter.
In the future, maybe we will find other source of oil, that's what we call now non-conventional oil
I wont deny the fact that oil can be formed form abiotic process.

Also, from the beginning I never talked about politics, oil company policy and such, I have my own idea about it, about speculation and such and how much oil we still have (having my own source of informations from different industries).

All I wanted to do here is correct some false statement about how oil are formed and how geology of organic matter works.

In answer to RaregolddragonRaregolddragon, maybe the water coming from the well was polluted with some oil.
In fact during the extraction we never extract all of the oil, this comes form the fact that some part of the oil is to heavy and to dense to be pumped.
You also have to know that almost all of the rock porosity in the crust is full of water mainly, natures hate emptiness.
So water can come to surface by a difference of pressure, bringing the supersaturated oil that were left.

This is a technique we use for some fields, pumping water or gaz into the reservoir to help extraction of the heavier oils or when the permeability is not good enough.

makeitso and ufoptics, I both agree with your contributions, I'de love to have a discussion with your grandfather, seems to have been an interesting person, my apologize for your lost.

History didn't proved that we were always wrong, hopefully sometimes we are or they will not be place anymore for scientists.
Always questioning yourself is the only way to go further.

Originally posted by mckyle
Not to impune your good name sir, but not all who publish academic work, are necessarily recognised by the international academic community.

You are just right on your statement.
Saddly I know a lot of geologist not being recognize for their work just because they dare to "shake" the foundation.
At contrary I know a bunch of geologist saying crap all the time and occupying good post.

It's life...

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by polar
Two well-esteemed Geologists I see. Much better would be investigating peer-reviewed Scientific scholarly articles by Geologists rather than Entrepreneurs/Political Scientists as they may well not understand the nuances that Geologists are equipped to (this is a geological subject, right?).
At this stage, I am with my fellow geologist Solenki. (S)he understands (sorry, unsure of your gender, not that it's important).
I am not a petroleum geologist, rather a paleontologist/sedimentologist and specifically a laboratory technician at a Tertiary Institution. There is a crossover however. I can assure you, at least in the case of the Geology Department at my institution, that we do not engage in deceit and do our best to understand the mechanisms of the Earth.

I totally agree with you and thanks you for contributing to this thread. I've done a lot of sedimentology to and I am specialized in carbonate formation. Thanks again to you and to mck

[edit on 16-11-2009 by Solenki]

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by makeitso

---

I love it....you came in said your piece with science backing you up and they ran. Cheers to you friend

Peace

Ignorance always bring the feeble-minded out of the wood work to give themselves a premature pat on the back.

Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 19 days ago with 277 member flags

The Devil\'s Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave
  Posted 4 days ago with 161 member flags

The Coca Cola Conspiracy: The secret cause for the U.S. obesity epidemic
  Posted 15 days ago with 139 member flags

Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 15 days ago with 122 member flags

The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 17 days ago with 86 member flags

Bank of America DOES NOT accept U.S. DOLLARS as payment on mortgages
  Posted 8 days ago with 85 member flags

Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 17 days ago with 83 member flags

10 People Whose Warnings Went Unheeded
  Posted 3 days ago with 77 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: