It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oil not a fossil fuel???

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Hi Fellow ATS members.

Got a quick question for you: I recently came across some stuff on the web claiming that oil is NOT a fossil fuel.

For example, this was taken from david icke's website:

Oil is often called a 'fossil' fuel; the idea being that it comes from formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils. How could then oil have come from fossils, or decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below layers of fossils the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not come from living matter at all!"

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."

I certainly realize that evidence of life is being discovered further and further down in the Earth's crust, but if the statement regarding the oil wells that were once pumped dry are now full again is actually true, this would completely negate the biological orgins of oil.

Also taken from the same site, a little long but interesting in my opinion:
"...your use of the word "abiotic" is good. As a non-fossil fuel, petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly living matter." There has not been enough true "formerly living matter"through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleumthat has been consumed to date.

My background in this subject goes back to 1943. I was the pilot who flew a US Geological Survey Team from Casablanca to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. We met the Cal. Standard Oil team holding down that lease. Then we went back to Cairo to meet President Roosevelt during the Nov. 1943 "Cairo Conference" with Churchill and Chiang Kai Shek. FDR ordered the immediate construction of an oil refinery there for WW II use. This led to ARAMCO.

During the "Energy Crisis" of the 1970s I was detailed to represent the US Railroad industry as a member of the "Federal Staff Energy Seminar" program started by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sponsored by Georgetown University. That began in Jan 1974 and continued for four years. It was designed to discuss "the working of the United States national energy system, and new horizons of energy research." Among the regular attendees were such men as Henry Kissinger and James Schlesinger...most valuable meetings.

During one meeting we took a "Buffet Break" and I was seated with Arthur Kantrowitz of the AVCO Company..."Kantrowitz Labs" near Boston. At the table with us were four young geologists busily talking about Petroleum. At one point one of them made reference to "Petroleum as organic matter, and a fossil fuel." Right out of the Rockefeller bible.

Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man said, "Certainly" and all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz listened quietly and then said, "The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface, how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter."

"Oil is neither."

They all agreed water was heavier, and therefore if there was some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go deep into the magma of Earth, water would have to go first and oil would be left nearer the surface. This is reasonable. Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state" this does not make it petroleum, and if it were petroleum it would have stayed near the surface as heavier items, i.e., water seeped below.

My D. Van Nostrand "Scientific Encyclopedia" says "Magma is the term for molten material. A natural, complex, liquid, high temperature, silicate solution ancestral to all igneous rocks, both intrusive and effusive. The origin of Magma is not known." My "Oxford English Dictionary" does not even have the word "Magma."

Some years ago I wrote two or three pages that appeared in the McGraw Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology, i.e., "Railroad Engineering." Even that source is a bit uncertain about the "origin of petroleum" to wit:

"Less than 1% of the organic matter that originates in or is transported to the marine environment is eventually incorporated into ocean sediment," and

"Most petroleum is formed during catagenesis (undefined anywhere). If sufficient organic matter is present oceanic sediments that undergo this process are potential petroleum sources. Deeply buried marine organic matter yields mainly oil, whereas land plant material yields mainly gas." (Their idea of "deeply buried" is the "out.")

All this leaves us no where. I still go with Kantrowitz. Since oil is lighter than water, everywhere on Earth, there is no way that petroleum could be an organic, fossil fuel that is created on or near the surface, and penetrate Earth ahead of water. Oil must originate far below and gradually work its way up into well-depth areas accessible to surface drilling. It comes from far below. Therefore, petroleum is not a "Fossil" fuel with a surface or near surface origin.

It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion"allowance philosophical scam.

During one of our C.S.I.S. "International Nights" (1978) the Common Market Energy boss, M. Montibrial of France, told us that while petroleum was being marketed then for $20.00 per barrel or more, it cost no more than 25 cents per barrel at the wellhead. There is our petroleum problem! We were paying more than $1.50-$1.60 per gallon, one 42nd of a barrel, at that time. Interested folks need to learn more about the Chartered Institute of Transport, and not waste their time with OPEC, the "Cover" story.

Those who pumped the Pennsylvania wells "dry" during the late eighteen hundreds saved what they had for those better days."

I don't know if this topic has been discussed here before, and I'm sorry if it has. I am just curious as to what other members think about this, and if there is any more recent info regarding this topic. Any geologists out there?

Sorry for the length and thanking you all in advance.

Matt.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
If you don't know if a topic has been discussed before, you use the "search" function. It has been discussed before.

I'm no geologist, so I'm not going to get into the formation of the oil.

What I do know is that we can only pump an extremely limited amount of the oil that is there out. Once the pressure is lost the production goes downhill, and then most of the oil that is left is in spongy rock formations and etc, which we can't get out without pumping water in to displace it. This is extremely dirty for the environment and still won't bring out all of the oil. My theory is that these re-incarnated oil fields have simply re-filled their cavities from the spongy surroundings. It'd probably go dry and refill again several times, but in no way does that make it unlimited.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils.

Icke has no idea what he is talking about.

Any geologist will tell you, well, most geologists will tell you that OIL IS CREATED BY THE MAGMA OF THE EARTH.

I don't think anyone is going to find even a few geolgists who will tell you this. I once had a several day session run by a biostratigrapher from Shell, and, er, he wouldn't say this. Magma is molten rock, the sort of stuff that is called lava when it erupts. What process are they suggesting allows it to create organic compounds? Newspapers are generally, no matter how good they are concerning other reports, terrible at communicating scientific information.


The oil wells in Pennsylvania that were pumped out dry at the turn of the century and capped are now filled with oil again."

Lets pretend this is true ( I don't know, might very well be, doesn't seem unreasonable, what wells anyway, all of them?). What is it supposed to mean? Oil is retained in pore space, and it can move underground. Its entirely possible that the well were drawing oil very fast, went dry, and then stopped. The oil moved, the wells became useful again.


if the statement regarding the oil wells that were once pumped dry are now full again is actually true, this would completely negate the biological orgins of oil.

It absolutely does not.

There has not been enough true "formerly living matter"through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleumthat has been consumed to date.

What are his calculations that show that? Doesn't seem reasonable at all.

Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter."

Cute story, doesn't make sense tho. Oil is formed by microscopic organisms. One doesn't need to find fossils of them at all in order for them to have been formed deeply.


therefore if there was some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go deep into the magma of Earth,

Right here there is a problem. I suspect you are remebering something wrong perahaps (or the other guy was just wrong). Magma, again, is lava that is underground. No one suggests that oil forms and 'flows thru cracks' in the earth and passes thru magma.


Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state"

Thats not what magma is.


this does not make it petroleum

I don't think anyone anywhere claims magma is petroleum, so why are you disputing it? .


My D. Van Nostrand "Scientific Encyclopedia" says "Magma is the term for molten material. A natural, complex, liquid, high temperature, silicate solution ancestral to all igneous rocks, both intrusive and effusive. The origin of Magma is not known."

get a new encyclopedia, that one is useless

My "Oxford English Dictionary" does not even have the word "Magma."

Best to get a new dictonary too. Whats the Lib of Congress code on that one? Which edition is it? I'd be curios to see which one doesn't have a definition for 'magma'


"Most petroleum is formed during catagenesis (undefined anywhere).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catagenesis
Also, when dealing with scientific terms, best to use a dictonary specific to the topic, like a petroleum geology dictonary or a geological sciences dictionary.



All this leaves us no where. I still go with Kantrowitz.

With no information and some terms you don't know the meaning of you arbitrarily decide to go with one particular scientist that almost every other geologist in the field disagrees with?


Since oil is lighter than water, everywhere on Earth, there is no way that petroleum could be an organic, fossil fuel that is created on or near the surface,

No one claims this, and you are forgetting that the ocean surface is continually being buried. Todays surface is, tommorrow, buried under tons of muck and rock.

and penetrate Earth ahead of water.

It doesn't penetrate the ground. It forms at depth.

Oil must originate far below and gradually work its way up into well-depth areas accessible to surface drilling. It comes from far below.

Yes, you are correct.

Therefore, petroleum is not a "Fossil" fuel

No, incorrect.

It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion"allowance philosophical scam.

Ah, a conspiracy. Unfortunately its uncessary, since oil forms at depth, gets buried deeper, and even retains isotopic signatures indicative of having been formed from living organisms.
Sorry for the length and thanking you all in advance.
One shouldn't apologize for detail.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   
One other hole in your theory - something I forgot to mention.

One of the reasons the Native Americans were put in Oklahoma is that the land was considered useless. In the west it is desert, in the east it is often hilly, rocky, and some places were totally useless for anything because there was this nasty black stuff bubbling up from the Earth. Hmm.. so it DOES come to the surface, but only in extremely rich areas (like Oklahoma, Texas, etc).

It is theorized to be formed from peat, vegetable matter that builds up layer after layer upon itself. Millions of years of that could easily create oil in the way we think it was created.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
quote: Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state"
Thats not what magma is.


quote: My D. Van Nostrand "Scientific Encyclopedia" says "Magma is the term for molten material. A natural, complex, liquid, high temperature, silicate solution ancestral to all igneous rocks, both intrusive and effusive. The origin of Magma is not known."
get a new encyclopedia, that one is useless

Two quotes from the above reply.

Here are the defintions for the word Magma:
mag·ma
n. pl. mag·ma·ta (-mät) or mag·mas

1) A mixture of finely divided solids with enough liquid to produce a pasty mass.
2) Geology. The molten rock material under the earth's crust, from which igneous rock is formed by cooling.
3) Pharmacology. A suspension of particles in a liquid, such as milk of magnesia.
4) The residue of fruits after the juice has been expressed; pomace.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.:
----------------------------------------------
mag·ma (mgm)
n.

1) A mixture of finely divided solids with enough liquid to produce a pasty mass.
2) A suspension of particles in a liquid, such as milk of magnesia.

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
----------------------------------------------
magma

\Mag"ma\, n. [L., fr. Gr. ?, fr. ? to squeeze, knead.] 1. Any crude mixture of mineral or organic matters in the state of a thin paste. --Ure.

2. (Med.) (a) A thick residuum obtained from certain substances after the fluid parts are expressed from them; the grounds which remain after treating a substance with any menstruum, as water or alcohol. (b) A salve or confection of thick consistency. --Dunglison.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------
magma

A program used for heavy duty
algebraic computation in many branches of mathematics. Magma,
developed by John Cannon and associates at the University of
Sydney, succeeded Cayley. It runs at several hundred sites.

Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2004 Denis Howe
------------------------------------------------------------

Before anyone goes and says something is flat out wrong, some research needs to be done. In the case of finding out what oil is, the wrong definition was used originally but Magma does have the meening of what was said in the original post.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrpKeeGTZ
quote: Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state"
Thats not what magma is.


quote: My D. Van Nostrand "Scientific Encyclopedia" says "Magma is the term for molten material. A natural, complex, liquid, high temperature, silicate solution ancestral to all igneous rocks, both intrusive and effusive. The origin of Magma is not known."
get a new encyclopedia, that one is useless

Two quotes from the above reply.

Here are the defintions for the word Magma:
mag·ma
n. pl. mag·ma·ta (-mät) or mag·mas

1) A mixture of finely divided solids with enough liquid to produce a pasty mass. [...]
Before anyone goes and says something is flat out wrong, some research needs to be done. In the case of finding out what oil is, the wrong definition was used originally but Magma does have the meening of what was said in the original post.

But thats certainly not the correct definition in the context of whats being talked about. When geolgists talk about magma that are talking about [drevil]Hot Liquid Mag- Ma[/drevil]

The other magma definition seems to be one for technically produced compounds or suspensions. Irregardless, even if the geologists were using magma in that usual definition, it doesn't change the rest of the post.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by mattison0922
today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils.

Icke has no idea what he is talking about.

Icke didn't state this. It was just posted on his site. Are you disputing that oil is found deeper than any fossils ever have been?


Any geologist will tell you, well, most geologists will tell you that OIL IS CREATED BY THE MAGMA OF THE EARTH.

I don't think anyone is going to find even a few geolgists who will tell you this. I once had a several day session run by a biostratigrapher from Shell, and, er, he wouldn't say this. Magma is molten rock, the sort of stuff that is called lava when it erupts. What process are they suggesting allows it to create organic compounds? Newspapers are generally, no matter how good they are concerning other reports, terrible at communicating scientific information.

I don't believe that anyone ever stated Magma wasn't molten rock, just that it was involved with the formation of organic compounds. There was never a process suggested. I just thought it was an intriguing concept, and wanted to investigate whether or not anyone here had any more information about it.


The oil wells in Pennsylvania that were pumped out dry at the turn of the century and capped are now filled with oil again."

Lets pretend this is true ( I don't know, might very well be, doesn't seem unreasonable, what wells anyway, all of them?). What is it supposed to mean? Oil is retained in pore space, and it can move underground. Its entirely possible that the well were drawing oil very fast, went dry, and then stopped. The oil moved, the wells became useful again.

Again, I don't know about the wells, which ones, how many, etc. What you have proposed is in fact possible. However, if wells are again full, your explanation is not the only valid one. Maybe processes besides degradation of biologicals does create oil.


if the statement regarding the oil wells that were once pumped dry are now full again is actually true, this would completely negate the biological orgins of oil.


It absolutely does not.

While it may not completely negate the fossil hypothesis, it doesn't necessarily support it.


There has not been enough true "formerly living matter"through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleumthat has been consumed to date.



What are his calculations that show that? Doesn't seem reasonable at all.

Doesn't seem reasonable? Where are your calculations to show that it doesn't seem reasonable. What are you basing this on. I can't support the assertions of Prouty (the person who stated this), I was merely seeing if someone had more info re: this topic.


Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter."

Cute story, doesn't make sense tho. Oil is formed by microscopic organisms. One doesn't need to find fossils of them at all in order for them to have been formed deeply.

I'm not sure I understand your statement: the story makes a lot of sense. Hydrocarbons are practically universally less dense than water. Whether or not oil is formed by microscopic organisms is irrelevant. Oil is less dense than water. When oil and water interact, which would presumably occur during the degradation of any biological organism, water due to its higher density would form a monolayer below the oil.


therefore if there was some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go deep into the magma of Earth,

Right here there is a problem. I suspect you are remebering something wrong perahaps (or the other guy was just wrong). Magma, again, is lava that is underground. No one suggests that oil forms and 'flows thru cracks' in the earth and passes thru magma.

Actually it seems that you've misunderstood. The point of this was that in the presence of water, water will occupy a crack or orifice prior to oil due to its density. The point was that water would flow down in to these voids before oil would. This is not my assertion. This is the assertion of the article at Icke's website. However, the arguments re: density do make sense chemically.


Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state"


Thats not what magma is.

This is absolutely what magma is.


this does not make it petroleum

I don't think anyone anywhere claims magma is petroleum, so why are you disputing it? .

I am personally not disputing it. And like you said, no one claims that magma is petroleum. The point was that oil doesn't have sufficient density to come to occupy deep crevices and caverns.


My D. Van Nostrand "Scientific Encyclopedia" says "Magma is the term for molten material. A natural, complex, liquid, high temperature, silicate solution ancestral to all igneous rocks, both intrusive and effusive. The origin of Magma is not known."

get a new encyclopedia, that one is useless

Based on what is this encyclopedia useless. Please qualify your statements. I would agree though. In this day and age most encyclopedias are useless.


My "Oxford English Dictionary" does not even have the word "Magma."

Best to get a new dictonary too. Whats the Lib of Congress code on that one? Which edition is it? I'd be curios to see which one doesn't have a definition for 'magma'

Not my dictionary, quoted from the site.


"Most petroleum is formed during catagenesis (undefined anywhere).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catagenesis
Also, when dealing with scientific terms, best to use a dictonary specific to the topic, like a petroleum geology dictonary or a geological sciences dictionary.



All this leaves us no where. I still go with Kantrowitz.

With no information and some terms you don't know the meaning of you arbitrarily decide to go with one particular scientist that almost every other geologist in the field disagrees with?

What makes you think I arbitrarily decided to agree with one scientist? I merely put the info here and said "what do you think?"


Since oil is lighter than water, everywhere on Earth, there is no way that petroleum could be an organic, fossil fuel that is created on or near the surface,

No one claims this, and you are forgetting that the ocean surface is continually being buried. Todays surface is, tommorrow, buried under tons of muck and rock.

No one claims what? Everyone claims that oil is lighter than water its a fact. Look at your salad dressing if you don't believe me.


and penetrate Earth ahead of water.

It doesn't penetrate the ground. It forms at depth.

Oil must originate far below and gradually work its way up into well-depth areas accessible to surface drilling. It comes from far below.

This is somewhat of a circular argument in that one of the initial assertions in this article was that oil is found at depths significantly below where there is evidence of life. If there is no evidence of life, ie, fossils at the depths oil is found how did it get there. Without fossil evidence at those levels 'fossil fuel' is just as much speculation as the assertions made by Icke's site.


Yes, you are correct.

Therefore, petroleum is not a "Fossil" fuel

No, incorrect.

It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion"allowance philosophical scam.

Ah, a conspiracy. Unfortunately its uncessary, since oil forms at depth, gets buried deeper, and even retains isotopic signatures indicative of having been formed from living organisms.

What does this mean isotopic signatures of living organisms? I know the definitions of those terms, however isotopic composition is not a function of being alive or dead in as much as it is a function of when something was formed. What isotopes? Carbon with its approximate 5000 year half life, can't be used to reliably date thing as old as oil. Isotopic signatures can be highly suspect as is. One research team dated a living mollusk to discover that it was more than 8,000 years old. What isotopic signature is indicative of having been created by a living organism?

Sorry for the length and thanking you all in advance.

One shouldn't apologize for detail.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Magma is molten rock and minerals. Unless what you are trying to get is mineral oil, and even that is highly unlikely, you are barking up the wrong oil derrick. Petroleum is a Hydrocarbon... organic material got buried over years and years under layers of rock and dirt, the pressure and heat forming either coal seams or oil reservoirs. It is organic. It may not be biodegradeable, but it is organic. Oil has been known to seep back into wells thought dry. But the reason they stop pumping wells that they call dry, and there is oil left in them, is because after a while, they cannot maintain pumping pressure. Under the laws of physics, no pump, no matter how strong, cannot pull a column of fluid higher than 32 feet or so. If the liquid is under pressure, then they can bring it to the surface. When it gets nearly impossible to bring any more oil to the surface, they quit, and cap the wells. For example, the arabs are pumping sea water into their wells to keep the pumping pressure high enough to recover their oil. Otherwise, with all that oil there, they might have "dry wells". Oil comes from organic matter. No one can convince me otherwise.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
One shouldn't apologize for detail.


When one is replying to a multi-paragraph post to reply to a single line, one should only quote that single line.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Sorry for any breaches in ettiquette. This is my first post and I am still trying to figure it out.

Matt



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 02:41 AM
link   
i also have very strong doubts as to the origins of oil.

since oil does not precipitate why is it deeper than the water table?

shouldnt all oil be above the fossil layers if it indeed come from decomposed organic material?

how does oil "sink" down to below all known fossil layers?

it would seem that oil does indeed rise from extremely deep beneath the mantle and crust of the earth.

the only reason that we have been taught "oil comes from decomposed dinosaurs" is to keep the price up.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Goldbaron357
Magma is molten rock and minerals. Unless what you are trying to get is mineral oil, and even that is highly unlikely, you are barking up the wrong oil derrick. Petroleum is a Hydrocarbon...


I am perfectly awarer of what magma is composed of. Furthermore I understand that petroleum is a hydrocarbon.


organic material got buried over years and years under layers of rock and dirt, the pressure and heat forming either coal seams or oil reservoirs.


Furthermore, I understand the current prevailing view with respect to the formation of oil.


It is organic.
This was never in dispute.



It may not be biodegradeable, but it is organic. Oil has been known to seep back into wells thought dry.


Reference?



But the reason they stop pumping wells that they call dry, and there is oil left in them, is because after a while, they cannot maintain pumping pressure. Under the laws of physics, no pump, no matter how strong, cannot pull a column of fluid higher than 32 feet or so. If the liquid is under pressure, then they can bring it to the surface. When it gets nearly impossible to bring any more oil to the surface, they quit, and cap the wells. For example, the arabs are pumping sea water into their wells to keep the pumping pressure high enough to recover their oil. Otherwise, with all that oil there, they might have "dry wells". Oil comes from organic matter. No one can convince me otherwise.


The particular physics with respect to pumps was never in question. Neither was the method that people used to extract additional oil from a well. The issue was what is the origin of oil. I don't believe that anyone has satisfactorily addressed that question.


Thanks for your thoughtful input re: this matter

[edit on 16-10-2004 by mattison0922]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
it would seem that oil does indeed rise from extremely deep beneath the mantle and crust of the earth.

Crust yes, mantle, no. No one has ever drilled into the mantle, and no seismic experiments have ever indicated that oil is in the mantle.


the only reason that we have been taught "oil comes from decomposed dinosaurs" is to keep the price up.

Oil does not come from dinosaurs. Thats a popular miconception. When it comes from oceanic deposits, its from organisms called microfossils, forams, planktonic life, etc. These organisms ar dying off in a continuous rain of organic material in the oceans. They fall to the ocean floor and accumulate over time. As more die, the ones that formerly settled get buried and compresed. Chalk formations are made out of ones with particular chalky coverings. Thats how many die off, the numbers are huge. As the muck that is their dead bodies gets buried and pressurized, the organic materials that they are made up of degrade and become something like oil. Meanwhile more and more sediments and muck have buried them. Eventually the oils that is the remains of what the micro-organisms were made up of moves upwards, or even laterally along porous rocks. It normally just escapes and disappears. However, if the fossiliferous (remeber, nano-fossils, not but dinosaurs) formations are overlain by non-porous material, like salt formations (the kind you get when seas dry up)then the thin stream of dilutely percolating oils accumulates into massive deposits of thick black crude. It can even segregate into liquid and gas layers.


Mr. Mattison, when you click the 'quote' button, the system presents you with the writting screen. When you see (and I will put this in caps so it shows up when I post this) [QUOTE] that means that the system will start a quote there, it will end it when there is [/QUOTE] All this sort of stuff starts with the word in brackets, and ends with the slash and the word.

[QUOTE] so if this is what i said and you want to respond to this particular line [/QUOTE]

you'd put your text here like this. You can also add the quote markers into the replied text where ever you want, so that you can reply to specific lines or delete the ones you don't want to. Quotes can be layered too, such that one can have

[QUOTE]original text [QUOTE]the first reply to it a reply to the reply

But usually the board administrators try to discourage that sort of thing.

As far as what you brought up before, the two different types of 'magma' are infact two different things. Molten rock type magma is not the same as 'fine particles suspended in a liquid' type magma. You were also right about the oil not having biological isotopic signatures, I was wrong on that. I googled for what you were looking for.

www.enviroliteracy.org...

Is about abiotic theories of fossil fuel formation. Coincidentally enough, tehy site a 'non-biological isotopic signature' as evidence for this. Anyway, if you are only looking for information regarding this generally unaccepted theory, then thats somewhere to look.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by __rich__
it would seem that oil does indeed rise from extremely deep beneath the mantle and crust of the earthCrust yes, mantle, no. No one has ever drilled into the mantle, and no seismic experiments have ever indicated that oil is in the mantle. .


While the mantle may be untapped, with respect to drilling, and because current technologies can't detect oil in the mantle, doesn't negate this possibility. Furtherrmore, J.F. Kenney of the Houston based Gas resources Corp. published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2002 stating that "The H-C system does not spontaneously evolve heavy hydrocarbons at pressures less than about 30 kbar, even in the most favorable thermodynamic environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment." This work also describes the laboratory synthesis of petroleum using calcium carbonate and Iron oxide.


the only reason that we have been taught "oil comes from decomposed dinosaurs" is to keep the price up

Oil does not come from dinosaurs. Thats a popular miconception. When it comes from oceanic deposits, its from organisms called microfossils, forams, planktonic life, etc. These organisms ar dying off in a continuous rain of organic material in the oceans. They fall to the ocean floor and accumulate over time. As more die, the ones that formerly settled get buried and compresed. Chalk formations are made out of ones with particular chalky coverings. Thats how many die off, the numbers are huge. As the muck that is their dead bodies gets buried and pressurized, the organic materials that they are made up of degrade and become something like oil.


The dinosaurs statement was not mine. 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. 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. This material, unlike protein, nucleic acid, lipids and carbohydrates, cannot be broken down further and really has no 'choice' but to accumulate.




Mr. Mattison, when you click the 'quote' button, the system presents you with the writting screen. When you see (and I will put this in caps so it shows up when I post this) that means that the system will start a quote there, it will end it when there is All this sort of stuff starts with the word in brackets, and ends with the slash and the word.


I genuinely appreciate the ATS primer. Thanks for your help. Please don't refer to me as Mr. Mattison. My first name is Matt, but my last name is not Mattison. Matt is fine.


As far as what you brought up before, the two different types of 'magma' are infact two different things. Molten rock type magma is not the same as 'fine particles suspended in a liquid' type magma. You were also right about the oil not having biological isotopic signatures, I was wrong on that. I googled for what you were looking for.


Apparently there is some debate about this. There seems to be a mishmash of different theories regarding this. It seems that there are both distinctly biological and non-biological signatures associated with petroleum.
Thomas Gold, a Cornell Professor, feels that this is due microoganisms (which are being found deeper and deeper all the time) living off this material. His assertion is essentially that the biotic signatures associated with petroleum are consequence of these interactions with hyperextremophilic chemoautrotrophic microorganisms. Others think it is a consequence of the biological orgins of these compounds. I think its also worth pointing out that C isotopes have a half life of more than 5000 years, but are not really good at predicting the age of things beyond a certain point. I don't remember what the cutoff of is, but I don't believe it's considered terribly accurate when you're talking about millions of years.


www.enviroliteracy.org...

Is about abiotic theories of fossil fuel formation. Coincidentally enough, tehy site a 'non-biological isotopic signature' as evidence for this. Anyway, if you are only looking for information regarding this generally unaccepted theory, then thats somewhere to look.


That was actually a great resource you located. There is a lot of good info there including links to primary research articles. Thanks for help and insight regarding this issue.

Matt



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Matt, check out the "Preview Post" button before you post to discourage errors.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
oil is not formed by magma. Any geologist who tells you this is not a geologist.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
This thread is ripe with “one liners” and “big quotes”. Pleeeese only quote the line you are directly responding to and refrain from the “yes”, “no”, “I agree”, “your wrong” type responses. Big quotes make it difficult to read and one liners don’t add anything to the conversation. Thanks…



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
"Most petroleum is formed during catagenesis (undefined anywhere)[Bold type mine. GP]. If sufficient organic matter is present oceanic sediments that undergo this process are potential petroleum sources. Deeply buried marine organic matter yields mainly oil, whereas land plant material yields mainly gas." (Their idea of "deeply buried" is the "out.")



There seems to be plenty on catagenesis here:

www.google.com...


[edit on 04/10/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Coal, oil, and gas-the so-called fossil fuels. All may have come from long-dead organisms that suffered incomplete decay. Coal is indisputably the carbon rich remains of ancient forests. But the origins of oil and gas are more obscure and have been open to dispute.
Most geologists believe that natural gas and oil derive from tiny marine organisms that died and sank to the sea bed many millions of years ago.

But University astrophysicist Thomas Gold rejected the "squashed fish" theory. Gold argued that natural gas and oil originated in the Earth's formation. He believed that enough of both fuels lies locked up deep in the Earth to last us millions of years. In the late 1980's as Swedish deep-drilling project with Gold as an adviser found gas traces in cavities 3.7miles (6km) below the surface.

What if:

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?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join