Oil not a fossil fuel???

i cuncur to that statement

Hey everyone. I must admit that I did not realize there was any contoversy about this. I just went with the conventional wisdom that Petrol is fossil fuel, blissful in my ignorance. You posts have forced me to start thinking for myself and research the subject.

I have found that the scientific community is still debating this. However, they are doing testing that the ATS community may want to review.

Physicsweb: Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton

Here is a related thread I believe. I already posted a link to the theory that oil is not a fossil fuel within this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mattison0922
Two days after I read his statement I encountered the following statement in a newspaper I deeply respect:

"Any geologist will tell you, well, most geologists will tell you that OIL IS CREATED BY THE MAGMA OF THE EARTH. The oil wells in Pennsylvania that were pumped out dry at the turn of the century and capped are now filled with oil again."

Since reading one of Mr Icke's books, I have wondered if we have been hoodwinked
*gasp*
by the government about the status of oil. We must admit, the public buys a lot of stuff on faith...although the faith seems to be getting thin as folks question more and more.

How do we really know it is a fossil fuel? Good find matt!!!
BTW, could you tell us what newspaper you quoted from in the above. Usually, if we quote something, the source SHOULD be mentioned.
And, I'm curious as hell

BTW, could you tell us what newspaper you quoted from in the above. Usually, if we quote something, the source SHOULD be mentioned.
And, I'm curious as hell

I'm sorry for not being more clear in the original post. All of the information from that first post was taken from Icke's site. www.davidicke.com. From there you have to nagvigate into mystery archives and you will find the link. I would put the link to exact site in, but for whatever reason, it doesn't pop up in the address bar.

Thanks for your input.

Matt

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by drfunk
oil is not formed by magma. Any geologist who tells you this is not a geologist.

drfunk, thanks for your highly qualified and informative post.

I am sorry but I had to laugh!

As for the thread, I have been loking into this and I have a link that has a fair article about this subject.:

Wrong link

I think it was called replinishable oil????





[edit on 16-10-2004 by edsinger]

orionthehunter

Thank you. The last post in the tread you point to leads to another thread with more in-dept info on the theory of oil entering the earth via asteriods and comets, etc. The coorelation between these treads, and the one I posted, PhysicsWeb Petroleum under pressure now makes me wonder if oil is found near impact sites (example: gulf of Mexico) not because it was carried to the earth via an asteroid, but because of the pressure exerted on the earths crust at impact. If an asteroid impacted into area of the earths crust which contained large amounts of iron oxide, & calcium carbonate, perhaps the resulting pressure converted these materials into natural gas and petroleum. It certainly seems more plausible than the asteroid carrying it in, don't you think?

There seems to be plenty on catagenesis here:

www.google.com...

Grady, thanks for your input. Unfortunately when I made that original post I don't believe that I was clear enough. Just about all that information, including the remark about catagenesis, was somebody else's stuff. While I did post the statement about catagenesis being undefined, it wasn't my contention. In the future I will be sure to post only relevant info and not entire sections of articles.

I have found that the scientific community is still debating this. However, they are doing testing that the ATS community may want to review.

Physicsweb: Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton

Nice find! Thanks for your effort. I knew ATS would come through with info!

But isn't Earth's interior a great fireball. What keeps the fire buring down there with no oxygen to feed it?

I think that there could be some confusion re: the inside of the Earth. I am not a geologist, however as I understand it, the great heat generated inside the earth is a function of the great pressure exerted by the 'outer' earth on the materials within the inner 'earth'. To my knowledge, there is not 'combustion,' which is absolutely oxygen dependent happening in the inner Earth.

Its too much of coincidence that petroleum is flammable and earth is naturally hot inside.

These would be competing reactions. The formation of oil is the reduction of carbon species. By reduction, I mean gaining an electron. Combustion is
oxidation, or loss of an electron (and often an associated H) by a C atom. The lack of oxygen is possibly a reason that petroleum like substances could be formed and persist in such a hot environment

do a search on ats this has been covered like 80 times already

Originally posted by mattison0922
While the mantle may be untapped, with respect to drilling, and because current technologies can't detect oil in the mantle,

Current technologies that can detect oil fail to detect it in the mantle.

doesn't negate this possibility.

Agreed. If oil could form abiotically on other planets, maybe it could form abiotically on earth. No evidence indicates that it does. The mantle, also, is superpresurized rock, rock that is so funky that it is actually a 'plastic'. Without any fossiliferous formations reaching it, there just isn't any mechanism by which oil can form.

Furtherrmore, J.F. Kenney

Interesting. Do you have the full text of that article? What is the H-C system?

The dinosaurs statement was not mine.

I know, thats why it wasn't attributed to you.

Your statement here is a little bold. The way this statement sounds it sounds as if ALL decomposing material is destined to become oil, when in fact the percentage of organisms that are deposited in the ideal conditions you speak of is practically zero.

These conditions are not ideal. The sheer number of oceanic plankton like lifeforms that are being buried underthese conditions far outweights the number of vertebrate life forms dying in general.

The fate of the majority of biological material is degradation and recycling back into other biologicals. Chalk formations are distinctly different from oil deposits. Chalk formations are the result of the accumulation of INORGANIC material.

Chalk formations are the result of the death, fallout, and accumulation of microorganisms that use calcium carbonate to make up their exoskeletons. When the biological material has rotted away, their chalky husks remain. I agree enttirely that large portions of the biological material are consumed by other organisms, however, large portions are also not consumed. The muck that is their remains gets buried over time. The smear of 'tar' that is left over from their uncomsumed organic portions becomes oil, and slowly starts escaping. If there is a 'trap', a non-porous layer, then their oils and gases will accumulate.

Lostinspace
But isn't Earth's interior a great fireball. What keeps the fire buring down there with no oxygen to feed it?

Pressure. Its not 'fire' raging underneath the ground persay, rather the pressure of so many tons of rocks. Lots of the heat in the earth is a result of readioactive material also. Lord Kelvin, so many odd years ago, tried to calculate the age of the earth by its cooling rate. His results were way off, largely because the effects of radioactive material was completely unknown.

donttreadonmen
the public buys a lot of stuff on faith

Do you think that the scientists working on thus stuff are also part of a conspiracy? And that the scientists in other countries and the goverments of other countries throughout the time that oil has been studied are part of a conspiracy?

I just have to wonder, if oil isn't a fossil fuel, then why are the most succesful companies using that theory to find oil? I mean, (and I am not saying that no one has ever found oil working on the understanding that its not a fossil fuel) the ways in which they have their geologists and paleontologists look for oil are working off that fossil fuel theory, and they seem to be pretty successful.Why wouldn't the oil companies adopt the abiological origins model if it meant that they'd have more oil? The price of oil isn't controled by the size of reserves, its controlled by the ability to recover and process it.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by Nygdan]

lostinspace wrote,
But isn't Earth's interior a great fireball. What keeps the fire buring down there with no oxygen to feed it? Its too much of coincidence that petroleum is flammable and earth is naturally hot inside. Could the petroleum be a bi-product of the heat generating functions taking place near the center of the earth?

Great question. There is a new theory: www.nuclearplanet.com...

Think of the Earth as a droplet from a hypernova core explosion. It was always hot with radionuclide decay, not concreted mostly from cold bits. The resident carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen has had plenty of time, heat, and pressure to 'cook' down there into petroleum.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by Chakotay]

Current technologies that can detect oil fail to detect it in the mantle.

Reference? This idea of oil being produced at the in the upper mantle and lower crusts is not mine, nor is it new. The idea was initially postulated by a group of Russian geologists. The controversy was reignited in the mainstream, in the 2002 PNAS article described earlier in this thread.

If oil could form abiotically on other planets, maybe it could form abiotically on earth.

I don't believe that abiotic oil formation on other planets was ever discussed in this thread. I don't know of any evidence of oil existing anywhere but on earth.

No evidence indicates that it does.

The point of this thread is that some evidence indicates it does. For example the initial postulation by Russians in '51, the PNAS paper by Kenney(2002), in his 1999 book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" Thomas Gold, a Cornell professor discusses this at length. In 2002 Lollar et al. published a paper in Nature claiming the "[a]biogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs." The evidence absolutely DOES exist.

there just isn't any mechanism by which oil can form.

Maybe, maybe not, but I've just referenced multiple sources that says it can. Where is your evidence?

Interesting. Do you have the full text of that article? What is the H-C system?

I do have the full text. If you would like U2U me with your email address, and I can send you the .pdf file. H-C system = Hydrocarbon System.

The dinosaurs statement was not mine.

I know, thats why it wasn't attributed to you.

Sorry, it looked you were addressing that comment as if it was MY assertion.

These conditions are not ideal. The sheer number of oceanic plankton like lifeforms that are being buried underthese conditions far outweights the number of vertebrate life forms dying in general.

The relative numbers of microorganisms dying relative to vertebrates or other higher eukarya was not in dispute. My contention was that your description made it sound as if most of the biological material dying in the ocean was destined to become oil. Even 'fossil fuel' proponents acknowledge that the percentage of organisms that becomes fossilized or partiallly decayed is significantly less than 1.

The fate of the majority of biological material is degradation and recycling back into other biologicals. Chalk formations are distinctly different from oil deposits. Chalk formations are the result of the accumulation of INORGANIC material.

Chalk formations are the result of the death, fallout, and accumulation of microorganisms that use calcium carbonate to make up their exoskeletons.

This is exactly what I said. However I made the more important distinction of of organic vs. inorganic

When the biological material has rotted away,

Yes, precisely... when the biological material has rotted away, (bold text added by me for emphasis).

I agree enttirely that large portions of the biological material are consumed by other organisms,

Not large portions... the fate of the large (>99%) majority of the Earth's biomass is degradation and recycling via other biologicals.

large portions are also not consumed.

Maybe. Your argument here is circular. Essentially you state that oil exists because large portions of microorganisms go unrecycled, and that large portions of microorganisms must go undigested because oil exists.

The muck that is their remains gets buried over time. The smear of 'tar' that is left over from their uncomsumed organic portions becomes oil, and slowly starts escaping. If there is a 'trap', a non-porous layer, then their oils and gases will accumulate.

Again, I am aware of the current prevailing theory with respect to the formation of oil. I began this thread to see if anyone had information besides the current prevailing theory. If I want someone to reiterate to me what is current dogma re: this situation, I can ask my nephews in jr. High. I brought the issue to ATS because are people here well schooled in a variety of issues, who are generally willing to back up their assertions with some sort of documentation.

donttreadonmen
the public buys a lot of stuff on faith

Do you think that the scientists working on thus stuff are also part of a conspiracy? And that the scientists in other countries and the goverments of other countries throughout the time that oil has been studied are part of a conspiracy?

Scientists need not be part of a conspiracy to not see the light in front of their face. This doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Being a scientist myself, I am willing to admit that in this day and age the objectivity of science is a nearly a complete farce. Scientists are subjected to hugely conflicting forces. Scientists main concern has often ceased to be there objectivity and now is more related to where is their financial support coming from. Your scientific programs are tailored to obtain funds from the people who have them. If you want money from the USDA, you study the correlation between Ca intake and osteoporosis, even if it means completely ignoring years of population statistics and what they might ndicate to the contrary. Of course whether or not Ca is related to Osteoporosis is for another thread. But if Exxon is paying to research the biotic origin of 'fossil fuels,' they are not really interested in evidence to the contrary. In the same way the USDA doesn't want you to know that the countries with the highest intakes of Ca have the highest rates of Osteoporosis. Furthermore, questioning the current dogma publicly if often suicide for a scientist. For example Duesberg, one of the biggest proponents of HIV not being the cause of AIDS, is a prominent virologist. He discovered the HTLV family and was one of the first to implicate their role in the formation of cancer. Despite his prestige in his field, Duesberg is currently working with no funding, as his beliefs don't coincide with the current dogma re: the etiology of AIDS.

I just have to wonder, if oil isn't a fossil fuel, then why are the most succesful companies using that theory to find oil? I mean, (and I am not saying that no one has ever found oil working on the understanding that its not a fossil fuel) the ways in which they have their geologists and paleontologists look for oil are working off that fossil fuel theory, and they seem to be pretty successful.

Because these individuals are working in the confines of what has worked in the past, it continues to be successful. And in fact your statement is not entirely true. An article published in The Russian Academy of Sciences - Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth, Moscow, Russia very clearly states that "the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins has played a central role in the transformation of Russia (then the U.S.S.R.) from being a �petroleum poor� entity in 1951 to the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation on Earth." I've got the full text to this one too, if you need it.


[edit on 17-10-2004 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922
Reference?

Oil Companies and geologists have technology and methods that are used to detect oil. None of those methods have detected oil in the mantle. Perhaps there's some reason for them not detecting it, but if there is, no one knows why.

If oil could form abiotically on other planets, maybe it could form abiotically on earth.

I don't believe that abiotic oil formation on other planets was ever discussed in this thread. I don't know of any evidence of oil existing anywhere but on earth.
I recall hearing about it possibly being on one of the moons of one of the gaseous planets. I don't recall any of the specifics.

1. For example the initial postulation by Russians in '51,
   
2. the PNAS paper by Kenney(2002),
   
3. in his 1999 book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" Thomas Gold, a Cornell professor discusses this at length.
   
4. In 2002 Lollar et al. published a paper in Nature claiming the "[a]biogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs."
   

Do you have access to any of these papers? I should be able to look at the one from nature.

The evidence absolutely DOES exist.

Doesn't the Thomas gold paper deal with abiogentically formed oils being recreated in the lab, not actually finding them in the field? Isn't that also the experiment that they couldn't monitor while it was ongoing, so they don't know the mechanism by which it happens? I don't doubt that oils can be formed abiogenetically, but there's a gap between that and saying that all or most oil that is used today is not a fossil fuel.

Maybe, maybe not, but I've just referenced multiple sources that says it can. Where is your evidence?

evidence for what, that oil forms from fossils? Are you doubting it? Or are you asking for evidence that it can't form abiotically? I do not and am not claiming that it can't.

proponents acknowledge that the percentage of organisms that becomes fossilized or partiallly decayed is significantly less than 1.

Hmm, haven't seen any data as to that percentage, could you send it if you have it with the other one?

When the biological material has rotted away,

Yes, precisely... when the biological material has rotted away, (bold text added by me for emphasis).
Yes, when its rotted and turned to oil.

large portions are also not consumed.

Maybe. Your argument here is circular. Essentially you state that oil exists because large portions of microorganisms go unrecycled, and that large portions of microorganisms must go undigested because oil exists.
No, its not circular, because its more than just that. If the fossiliserous beds had nothing to do with it, then oil geologists wouldn't look for oil above fossiliferous beds.

The muck that is their remains gets buried over time. The smear of 'tar' that is left over from their uncomsumed organic portions becomes oil, and slowly starts escaping. If there is a 'trap', a non-porous layer, then their oils and gases will accumulate.

they are not really interested in evidence to the contrary.

Even tho its going to lead to them having more oil? The business is competitive, they'd be interested in the methods that result in the greatest amount of oil recovered and the greatest success rate in finding oil fields. It doesn't make sense to say that people working with the standard (tho incorrect) model are coincidentally more succesful.
Are you saying that the oil execs have discovered that oil is produced abiotically, even tho the scientists, such as the ones named above, haven't been able to figure it out?

For example Duesberg, one of the biggest proponents of HIV not being the cause of AIDS, is a prominent virologist.

His probably doesn't have funding because AIDS is caused by HIV. What sort of research do you do? You said above you are a scientist, what field is it? I am merely asking.

I just have to wonder, if oil isn't a fossil fuel, then why are the most succesful companies using that theory to find oil? I mean, (and I am not saying that no one has ever found oil working on the understanding that its not a fossil fuel) the ways in which they have their geologists and paleontologists look for oil are working off that fossil fuel theory, and they seem to be pretty successful.

Because these individuals are working in the confines of what has worked in the past, it continues to be successful.

Why is it working and succesful if its completely and totally wrong?

to the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation on Earth." I've got the full text to this one too, if you need it.

I'll definitly read it when you send it. What methods do the Russians use when exploring for oil? How have they used this technique to find more oil? This is something yukooil does? Why doesn't shell or BP use these techniques?

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 H�C 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.

A document from 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.



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.



[edit on 29-10-2004 by makeitso]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by mattison0922
Reference?

Oil Companies and geologists have technology and methods that are used to detect oil. None of those methods have detected oil in the mantle. Perhaps there's some reason for them not detecting it, but if there is, no one knows why.

If oil could form abiotically on other planets, maybe it could form abiotically on earth.

I don't believe that abiotic oil formation on other planets was ever discussed in this thread. I don't know of any evidence of oil existing anywhere but on earth

I recall hearing about it possibly being on one of the moons of one of the gaseous planets. I don't recall any of the specifics.

That's too bad, as this is actually interesting and seems to be germane to this particular thread. I'd be interested in following up on this.

1. For example the initial postulation by Russians in '51,
   
2. the PNAS paper by Kenney(2002),
   
3. in his 1999 book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" Thomas Gold, a Cornell professor discusses this at length.
   
4. In 2002 Lollar et al. published a paper in Nature claiming the "[a]biogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs."
   

   
   
   Do you have access to any of these papers? I should be able to look at the one from nature.

.

The '51 paper, I don't have access to, and admittedly have not read, but have merely used for the purposes of historical context. The PNAS paper is forthcoming as per our u2u agreement. In addition to this I will attach the Russian reference discussed later in my previous post. If you can't get the Nature paper, I have access to that one too.

The evidence absolutely DOES exist.
Doesn't the Thomas gold paper deal with abiogentically formed oils being recreated in the lab, not actually finding them in the field? Isn't that also the experiment that they couldn't monitor while it was ongoing, so they don't know the mechanism by which it happens? I don't doubt that oils can be formed abiogenetically, but there's a gap between that and saying that all or most oil that is used today is not a fossil fuel.

The reference I was attributing to Gold was a book, not an article. I am not sure of which Gold article you are referring to. The Kenney paper does deal with laboratory synthesis. I agree, there is a gap between acknowledging that oil can form abiogenically, and saying that all or most used today is not a fossil fuel. If I did say this, that is my fault and I need to be more careful with word choices. The point of my beginning this thread was merely seeing what other ATS members had heard. My real interest in this lies in the renewability of this resource. If oil is not strictly or even predominantly a fossil fuel, there may be some renewable source. I understand that the title of this thread is "Oil not a fossil fuel??" but the operative thing here is the question marks.... just throwing the question out there to see what info is availabe.

Ironically enough, some of the best information I've discovered about this topic was via a link that YOU provided me with.

Maybe, maybe not, but I've just referenced multiple sources that says it can. Where is your evidence?

evidence for what, that oil forms from fossils? Are you doubting it? Or are you asking for evidence that it can't form abiotically? I do not and am not claiming that it can't.

The specific issue here was whether or not oil can form in the mantle. Your assertion was that it cannot, based on the examples I provided, I implied that some people believe it's possible. The request was for evidence that oil cannot be formed in the mantle.

proponents acknowledge that the percentage of organisms that becomes fossilized or partiallly decayed is significantly less than 1.

Hmm, haven't seen any data as to that percentage, could you send it if you have it with the other one?

John W. Bebout, Ph.D., Sr. Technical Specialist, Oil and Gas, Fluid Minerals Group, of the Bureau of Land Management states that "Of the 100,000,000 extinct animal species, only around 100,000 species have been discovered and described. That means that only around 1/10 of 1% of all animal species that have ever lived have been..." fossilized and "...discovered." Gingerich stated that "[e]ven the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years." These a just a couple of examples, there are many more out there about the percentage of organisms that become fossils.

Yes, when its rotted and turned to oil.

There could be some confusion. 'Fossil fuel' formation is the process of organics not rotting away, or only partially rotting away. In general fossilization occurs when organisms go UNDIGESTED, and there organic 'parts' are gradually mineralized. Formation of oil would is essentially negated by the 'rotting away' of organics.

If the fossiliserous beds had nothing to do with it, then oil geologists wouldn't look for oil above fossiliferous beds.

I disagree with this contention. Some or even most geologists search for oil in the fossiliferous beds simply because it HAS worked in the past. Because those things were found in the same spot absolutely does NOT imply a cause and effect relationship. I could just as easily bring to light the Russian groups that are extracting oil from levels far below those at which fossils have been previously discovered. If fossils and oil go hand in hand, how do you explain this?

they are not really interested in evidence to the contrary.

Even tho its going to lead to them having more oil? The business is competitive, they'd be interested in the methods that result in the greatest amount of oil recovered and the greatest success rate in finding oil fields. It doesn't make sense to say that people working with the standard (tho incorrect) model are coincidentally more succesful.

I can't say what is behind peoples motives for things. However, you might want to reconsider your position: Exxon, Shell, BP, whoever may have a vested interest in making you and I believe that oil is a non-renewable resource. Perpetuating this idea, whether or not it's true, permits them to keep the prices of these non-renewable resources artificially high. The business is interested in generating the largest amount of profit possible. Large profits and large supply are not things that have historically gone hand in hand. Furthermore, how can you say that people working with the standard model are the most successful? What are you measuring success by? I would say that Russia going from being 'petroleum poor' to being the largest producer and exporter on Earth in a little over 50 years as extremely successful (discussed in my previous post). Can you site a more 'successful' example using the 'standard model?'

Are you saying that the oil execs have discovered that oil is produced abiotically, even tho the scientists, such as the ones named above, haven't been able to figure it out?

.

I have made no statements regarding oil executives and the abiotic formation of oil. I have also made no statements regarding the inability of ANY scientist 'to figure it out.'

For example Duesberg, one of the biggest proponents of HIV not being the cause of AIDS, is a prominent virologist.

His probably doesn't have funding because AIDS is caused by HIV.

This is for you to argue with Duesberg. I only brought him up as an example of how even a prominent scientist will be 'put out of business' if his research agenda doesn't coincide with current dogma. As a side note, I find it interesting that you would completely discount Duesberg, considering it sounds like you know very little about him or his work. Duesberg, by the way is far from the only scientist who believes this. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, and inventor of the polymerase chain reaction, the technique that has revolutionized Molecular Biology, making things like sequencing the human genome possible also believe this. This topic is for a different thread (sorry moderators, I felt I had to defend my position), but perhaps you should be less quick to jump to conclusions regarding topics that you seem to have a 'Fox News' perspective on.

What sort of research do you do? You said above you are a scientist, what field is it? I am merely asking.

Undergraduate in Biochemistry, Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Biology... currently I am involved with the design of handheld device for the detection of bioterrorist agents. However the particular technology also has potential in the disease diagnostics category. The device is to be utilized by US special forces in the field. A further device is also being developed that will sample air in both airports and cities, also monitoring for bioterrorist agents. I have also performed research on Nutritional Supplementation, several DNA sequencing projects, Human HLA typing for bone marrow and organ transplantee, as well as the structure/function relationships with respect to protein stability and enzyme mechanisms.

I just have to wonder, if oil isn't a fossil fuel, then why are the most succesful companies using that theory to find oil? I mean, (and I am not saying that no one has ever found oil working on the understanding that its not a fossil fuel) the ways in which they have their geologists and paleontologists look for oil are working off that fossil fuel theory, and they seem to be pretty successful.

Because these individuals are working in the confines of what has worked in the past, it continues to be successful.

Why is it working and succesful if its completely and totally wrong?

Perhaps you need to reread what I've written. I never stated anything was completely and totally wrong. This thread is a forum for the discussion about the possible abiotic origins of oil. This statement was saying that if something works you, why change it. Geologists have been successful finding oil in particular circumstances. Generally, when you embark on a project you choose the path of least resistance. Oil has been found in the 'fossiliferous beds' previously. This suggests this is a likely place to find oil, but it DOES NOT imply that it is the only place. If your job depended on you finding water, you don't come to the desert, despite the fact that there may be abundant water in some locations of the desert; you go to where you're MOST likely to find water.

to the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation on Earth." I've got the full text to this one too, if you need it.

I'll definitly read it when you send it. What methods do the Russians use when exploring for oil? How have they used this technique to find more oil? This is something yukooil does? Why doesn't shell or BP use these techniques?

Consider the reference forthcoming. The methods are addressed in the article. I don't know about YukoOil, Shell, or BP.

Makeitso... Thanks for the great finds, and for posting those articles. Where do you find free journal articles? I have access to these articles through E-libraries via my job, but I didn't think just anyone could access PNAS, for example. Again... great posts.

mattison0922,

I bow humbly to your praise. I salute your creditials.

I found that the PNAS can be accessed freely at: www.pnas.org...

How did I find that you ask:

If it interests me, I will find the information if it exists. I will Deny Ignorance.
I will not stop until I find it. I will not go gently into that good night!

I believe if you want something you have to.... makeitso.


[edit on 29-10-2004 by makeitso]

Makeitso,

Thanks for the support.

I didn't know that about PNAS. That's good to know. Most are not, I have access. If I can ever help you out, accessing articles, let me know.

I salute your attitude and philosophy... BTW, having a Ph.D. is just about being able to persist... nothing special. Based on the little I've seen and heard from you... I would estimate you've got that ability to persist.

Good Luck and thanks again!

Matt